…and this is a 
We more or less blitzed through the "museum" last Friday, and I think I speak for many of the 300 when I say that we'd had enough lunacy for the day. Some of us, apparently, had stronger stomachs, and went back for Terry Mortenson's talk later that afternoon. Dr Mortenson is, I think, one of those people with Ph.D.s of whom Ken Ham is so proud…but man, that guy is freakin' nuts. He spoke about human evolution, and you can guess where that went. Well, maybe. I wouldn't have anticipated this:
I know. One minute they're telling us that Gawd created humans exactly as they are now, and all those hominin fossils are just apes, and the next, they're telling us Homo erectus and Neandertal are just Noah's great-grandkids (he had a very complicated family, didn't he?). Consistency is one of those trivial details that gets thrown out when you dismiss human reason, I guess.
Despite the fact that we clearly missed a lot of the insanity going on there, I don't think I need to go back.
File this under "Holy crap" — Jason also attended the lecture, and look what slide Mortenson showed at the end.
That's from the AiG website, too, so we aren't making this up — you can go right to the source.
It doesn't matter that they are imputing that imagery to evolution. Imagine if biologists put on blackface and started talking in thick dialect while claiming that's what creationists think — that's what those scumbags at AiG are doing.
Comments
Posted by: Tony Whitson | August 13, 2009 3:44 PM
This is off-topic, but people might be interested in the brief Chris Comer has filed in the appeal of her case in Texas. See
http://curricublog.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/comer-decision-appealed/
Posted by: Gareth L Owen | August 13, 2009 3:46 PM
But, but if Neanderthals are descendants of Noah, then evolution happens much faster than any "evolutionist" thinks possible.
I don't think they've thought this through.
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
August 13, 2009 3:47 PM
Wouldn't it have made more sense that the Neandertals were killed in the flood?
...
Wow! I can't believe that I just asked that.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
August 13, 2009 3:48 PM
You mean that similarity means common ancestry in human lines?
Why doesn't similarity mean common ancestry of humans and apes, humans and monkeys, humans and lemurs? Did reproduction cease to mean "after their kind" at some point?
I like the separation of "races" and species, too. No gene mixing between caucasions and the rest, nosirree.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: AdamK | August 13, 2009 3:50 PM
Not a bit racist! No, no, not a bit. Why, I'm sure some of his best friends are neanderthals and other similar divergent descendents of Noah.
Posted by: PeterKarim | August 13, 2009 3:51 PM
Maybe if you know a 10-12 grader you can get to dispute that theory and present counter argument it in their upcoming science fair. Here are the guidelines:
http://creationmuseum.org/special-events/science-fair/guidelines/
Posted by: BMS | August 13, 2009 3:52 PM
Can you buy a copy of that as a poster or post card or something?
Cuz that's just - wow. At a loss for words now.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | August 13, 2009 3:53 PM
Is it just me, or did they use like, the maximum number of lines in the "Negro" picture to exaggerate facial characteristics, while leaving the "Caucasian" unblemished?
Posted by: DaveL | August 13, 2009 3:53 PM
Hold on, hold on... he's claiming that humans and chimpanzees couldn't possibly share a common ancestor, but that at one point there were 4 homo sapiens who were literal blood brothers with a homo erectus?
Posted by: scarn | August 13, 2009 3:53 PM
Yeah, the inclusion of races in the graphic is incredibly creepy.
Posted by: Will | August 13, 2009 3:54 PM
It gets even worse because they're using the outdated, innaccurate and simplistic "3 races" theory.
This kind of thinking can contribute to racism, since it posits that "races" are very real things, and each group is very distinct from one another.
Posted by: scarn | August 13, 2009 3:55 PM
And who the hell still uses the term "mongoloid?" WTF?
Posted by: LRA | August 13, 2009 3:59 PM
LMAO!!!!
Posted by: Lynn Wilhelm | August 13, 2009 4:00 PM
Don't you get it? These hominids were descendants, not ancestors. So they couldn't have died in the flood.
Perhaps these were mutated children of Noah--shhhh, they didn't talk about them, probably no mention of them in the bible. I wonder what kind of curse they got from god? Maybe their dad saw Noah's wife naked?
I agree it would have been easier for them to claim these "mutations" died in the flood. Maybe they were just born before the flood.
This is crazy--what kind of "Dr" is this guy?
Posted by: Victor | August 13, 2009 4:01 PM
I keep asking the same thing about the dinosaurs, yet they have them on Noah's ark only to die a few years later. You think God would have told Noah not to bother. Or maybe that's just another detail that slipped past Gawd's radar).
Posted by: Cthulhu | August 13, 2009 4:02 PM
"And who the hell still uses the term "mongoloid?" WTF?"
Mongols? :-p
Posted by: daveau | August 13, 2009 4:03 PM
This is like in Highlights for Children where you're supposed to pick out what's wrong with this picture, right? Right?
Posted by: Bronze Dog | August 13, 2009 4:05 PM
I forget which ones got their letters where, but my first guess would be he's the kind of "Dr" who got his degree by sending a lot of good money to a P.O. Box.
Wait, I take that back... it was probably ill-gotten gains he sent to the P.O. Box.
Posted by: handthatbites | August 13, 2009 4:05 PM
@12
I believe It's used in genetic mapping but if used in this context, "Negroid" would also be used (I guess that's too offensive unlike "Mongoloid").
Posted by: hje | August 13, 2009 4:05 PM
Hey where's the branch from the Nephilim sexing all the pretty antediluvian ladies?
Posted by: MikeyM | August 13, 2009 4:06 PM
And who the hell still uses the term "mongoloid?" WTF?
Devo.
Posted by: Ray S. | August 13, 2009 4:07 PM
I predict it will be a matter of hours before Ham disavows any knowledge of such a poster or display. IF he were to proclaim such a theory publicly, it wouldn't surprise me to see a mob, most of whom would self describe as Christians, burn his place down. Personally I'm against that happening as I'd like to keep Ham Fantasy Land intact as a monument to stupidity.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
August 13, 2009 4:08 PM
Homo erectus is descended from Noah? Was his name George Olduvai? Where does Homo floresiensis fit into this picture?
Posted by: Rob | August 13, 2009 4:09 PM
Well they are missing 2 of the 5 Anthropolgical races. The have "Negroid", "Asain" and "Caucasian" but are missing "Islander" and "Australian Aboriginals"...Are they not human?
Posted by: Buford | August 13, 2009 4:09 PM
@3 & 15 They're also trying to say that the fossil hominids that appear in strata they claim was set down by the flood are composed of people who are descendants of Noah after the flood. Have cake + eat cake.
Posted by: amphiox | August 13, 2009 4:10 PM
Hmm. . . .
Some of the later H. erectus populations were taller (averaging 6 feet plus) and more muscular than the average H. sapiens. "There were giants on the earth in those days. . . " ? (Except was that before the Flud?)
And neanderthals were shorter and stockier on average. PYGMIES AND DWARFS!
Posted by: KCS | August 13, 2009 4:10 PM
It looks like Capt. Kirk, Capt. Sisko and Capt. Sulu at the top. Maybe the ark was really a spaceship!
Posted by: Bronze Dog | August 13, 2009 4:11 PM
Well, I wonder if it might have the upswing effect of making Ham actually think about his beliefs. Nah, way too unlikely to ever happen within the lifespan of this universe.
Posted by: Richard Smith | August 13, 2009 4:12 PM
Mongoloid he was a mongoloid
Happier than you and me
Mongoloid he was a mongoloid
And it determined what he could see
Mongoloid he was a mongoloid
One chromosome too many
Mongoloid he was a mongoloid
And it determined what he could see
And he wore a hat
And he had a job
And he brought home the bacon
So that no one knew
Mongoloid he was a mongoloid
His friends were unaware
Mongoloid he was a mongoloid
Nobody even cared
(Devo-lution!)
Posted by: 01jack | August 13, 2009 4:13 PM
Noah's Family: 8 people
And then only six types are illustrated. The other two? Must be
PYGMIES + DWARFS!
Posted by: arrakis
|
August 13, 2009 4:13 PM
The term "Mongoloid Syndrome" was once used in place of what we now call Down Syndrome. In that context, "Mongoloid" becomes even more offensive.
Posted by: Drosera | August 13, 2009 4:13 PM
The eminent Victorian scientist Dr. Mortenson forgot to write the name 'Ham' at the base of the arrow leading to the 'Negro.'
Posted by: Tophe | August 13, 2009 4:13 PM
People must have really bred like rabbits back in the day for us to go from a world population of 8 to 6.7 billion in just a few thousand years.
Posted by: Robert Madewell | August 13, 2009 4:14 PM
There's that Hamite Hypothesis again!
I remember back when "Mongoloid" was a deroggatory term for Down Syndrome. I think I would perfer a more PC term like Asian. Also, look at how exagerated the features are in the picture of the black man. They may not be racist today (at least not openly), but creationism does have racist roots. Pictures like this one are obvious throw backs to that time.
Hey! The Caucasian looks like Kent Hovind!
Posted by: Bentham | August 13, 2009 4:17 PM
And who the hell still uses the term "mongoloid?" WTF?
Still gets occasional use in discussing Down's syndrome facial appearance, as in "Mongoloid facies".
Posted by: James Sweet | August 13, 2009 4:21 PM
To all of you who are saying that the use of the words "Negro" and "Mongoloid" are borderline racist, shame on you! If you think something presentend at the Creation Museum is racist, then tell me, how can that possibly be, when Ken Ham has already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt his ability to befriend "Negros"? Huh?
Posted by: BeamStalk | August 13, 2009 4:23 PM
I almost stayed for his lecture but Lisle's lecture already had me wanting to bash my skull in with a hammer. The only thing good about Lisle's lecture was talking to a young Christian kid in line for lunch and seeing him start to think a bit.
Posted by: Alyson Miers | August 13, 2009 4:24 PM
Consistency is one of those trivial details that gets thrown out when you dismiss human reason, I guess.
Do the Liars for Jebus even want consistency, really? Do they even aspire to it, keep it in mind? I'm starting to think that, if anything, consistency is the last thing they want. They don't really want their dogma to be comprehensible to the rank-and-file. The obfuscation is much simpler in Muslim countries, where most non-Arab Muslims can only get the Quran printed in Arabic and thus don't have the liberty of interpreting it for themselves. Whereas Christian populations get their church services and Bible in their local languages rather than Latin or Greek, so the party line needs to be kept incredibly contradictory so as to keep the masses confused and dependent on their leadership for guidance and clarity.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 13, 2009 4:25 PM
The asian person looks like Sulu from Star Trek.
For whatever reason they can't ignore Cro Magnon and Neanderthal. I guess if Ham and company are going to bastardize science...might as well go for the full mile.
Does anyone think that accomidationism spawned the creation "museum"?
Posted by: Jim | August 13, 2009 4:27 PM
@25 Buford
I was thinking the exact same thing.
Posted by: Carlie | August 13, 2009 4:31 PM
That must be one hell of a family reunion. Do they make the Neanderthals sit at the kids' table?
Posted by: truthspeaker | August 13, 2009 4:32 PM
"Asian" has the disadvantage of being inaccurate. There are well over a billion people in Asia who do not look like Southeast Asians and are (broadly) part of the Caucasoid racial group.
We Americans tend to use "Asian" to mean "southeast Asian", forgetting that India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Middle East, Siberia, and various other -stans are in Asia.
Posted by: Justin Chase | August 13, 2009 4:32 PM
WOW... are you serious? I'm speechless. These people are seriously ID-iots.
Posted by: midwifetoad | August 13, 2009 4:33 PM
He complains that Lucy is upright. Then he quote mines Louis Leaky saying no one is sure. Well we are sure. Maybe the information wasn't available to Leaky. I could not find a source on internet to give me full dialog of Leaky either.
Lucy: Discovered by Donald Johanson and Tom Gray in 1974 at Hadar in Ethiopia
Louis Seymour Bazett Leakey (L.S.B. Leakey) (August 7, 1903 – October 1, 1972)
Posted by: mengbomin.wordpress.com
|
August 13, 2009 4:33 PM
@24
Clearly because Noah only had three sons, it would only make sense if there were three races. Polynesians and Aborigines don't exist.
Actually, come to think of it, why didn't they just say that Neanderthals, Cro Magnons, and Homo erectus were the wicked people that the flood drowned? It works much better with their theology. Otherwise they have to explain where these other "races" came from and I was pretty sure Noah only had three sons.
Maybe their idea is that the other three sons whose descendants looked like weird skulls were the forsaken ones unmentionable in the Bible, like all those saddled dinosaurs they apparently have on display.
Posted by: Nentuaby | August 13, 2009 4:33 PM
Yeah, once again: WTF? "Mongoloid?" The last publication I saw use that as a biological term of art also had a bit on skull capacities.
Posted by: Heidi | August 13, 2009 4:35 PM
How can one place actually fit all that stupid? I'm just... wow.
Posted by: AwesomeRobot | August 13, 2009 4:35 PM
Actually, the term "Caucasian" is perhaps the most racist of all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race
Also Cro Magnon are anatomically modern humans. But why should they bother getting anything right.
Posted by: truthspeaker | August 13, 2009 4:36 PM
While I don't approve of lying about science, I think Mortensons's presentation would have been slightly less implausible, and far more fun, if he had posited that Neanderthals were pre-Deluge Nephilim instead of descendents of Noah.
Posted by: midwifetoad | August 13, 2009 4:37 PM
Lucy: Discovered by Donald Johanson and Tom Gray in 1974 at Hadar in Ethiopia
Louis Seymour Bazett Leakey (L.S.B. Leakey) (August 7, 1903 – October 1, 1972)
Sorry about the double post, but I messed up the first try.
Posted by: Spiv | August 13, 2009 4:38 PM
"Dr. Mortenson earned a B.A. in math from the University of Minnesota in 1975, a M.Div. in systematic theology from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Illinois, in 1992, and holds a Ph.D. in history of geology from Coventry University, UK, in 1996"
Strangely, Coventry University does not seem to offer a "history of geology" Ph.D. Only a masters in 20th Century History. Must have dropped that degree?
I hate to bugger for a dude's credentials so obviously, but really I'm so used to these people lying to us on everything someone in the UK maybe want to phone up Coventry and see if they even ever graduated the guy?
Not that it should matter even if he does actually have a Ph.D is "history of geology." History of a science does not, in any way, imply a knowledge of any depth of that science. Or any other science, like, you know, biology or anthropology. Which are the things he seems to think he knows something about.
Oh yeah, and my brain is tumbling at the blatant racism of that "chart."
Posted by: mr_subjunctive | August 13, 2009 4:39 PM
The Caucasian doesn't really look like anybody in particular to me, but I think the other two look more like Michael and Jin from "Lost." Especially Jin.
Posted by: BMcP | August 13, 2009 4:41 PM
What? No homo habilus? Or are they the part of Noah's family no one is suppose to talk about, like that crazy uncle.
Posted by: Captain Mike | August 13, 2009 4:43 PM
"People must have really bred like rabbits back in the day for us to go from a world population of 8 to 6.7 billion in just a few thousand years." - Tophe @ 33
If you take a global population of 8, and assume that each generation doubles the number of people, you'll get to a population of well over 8 billion in just 32 generations, or about 640 years. That's geometric growth for you. It's tricky.
So sorry, but you're going to have to pick something else to show that the people running the Creation Museum are idiots. That shouldn't take long. I can pick holes in all of their claims, and my only relationship to science is to occasionally ask it for money.
Posted by: Aaron | August 13, 2009 4:44 PM
Dr. Mortensen (his doctorate is in historical geology) came to our town for this silly AiG "Examine the Evidence" event.
He's a nice guy, but is most definitely an AiG-guy. I chatted with him a couple times. He was rather bewildered why we evolutionists could possibly think that Pakicetus was a precursor to baleen whales. Go figure.
He gave a talk at the local university, and then again at the local conference -- at the local university, I had asked a few questions but he generally deferred to the AiG website on any points outside of geology oriented questions.
I'm not surprised about the presentation though. I recall at his presentation he discussed that instead of the UCA / "Tree of Life", AiG believes in the "Forest of Life" (baraminology). Oy.
Posted by: Valdyr | August 13, 2009 4:44 PM
"Mongoloid" is actually still used in anthropology, afaik. Whether or not it's vaguely racist is for someone else to determine. But... "Negro"? I only took one semester of cultural anthro, but don't they use "Africoid" now? I seem to remember doing a little forensic anthropology lab with skulls labeled "Caucasoid", "Africoid" and "Mongoloid".
Posted by: Carlie | August 13, 2009 4:47 PM
If you take a global population of 8, and assume that each generation doubles the number of people, you'll get to a population of well over 8 billion in just 32 generations, or about 640 years. That's geometric growth for you. It's tricky.
But what you're forgetting is that people are sluts. Each set of two isn't independent of every other set of two. You're also forgetting those pesky little bottlenecks like the Black Death.
Posted by: E.V. | August 13, 2009 4:47 PM
Sure he does! http://www.subgenius.com/Posted by: Tex | August 13, 2009 4:48 PM
@ #39 The asian person looks like Sulu from Star Trek.
Nope. Can't be.
Sulu was played by George Takei
Takei is gay.
No gay people allowed in god's family.
QED
Or something like that. I'm still trying to figure out all of the fundie 'thinking' patterns.
Posted by: James Sweet | August 13, 2009 4:48 PM
This is true, however, the inadequacy of "Asian" to stand in as a less offensive phrase for "Mongoloid" is because the very concept of there being a "Mongoloid race" stems from a completely discredited typological classification: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongoloid#Criticism
In other words, the reason it is difficult to think of politically correct words to substitute for the classification used by Mortenson is that subdividing humanity into those three races is in itself somewhat offensive, or at the very least highly ignorant.
Posted by: sharky | August 13, 2009 4:53 PM
Just as a side note: "Mongoloid" was, IIRC, only co-opted by Dr. Down, who did hold racist genetic theories and thought there was a connection of... some sort. The category itself was... somewhat more innocently conceived, bearing in mind that everyone's a product of their time, before Down threw in his two cents.
Anyway, someone else coined "Mongoloid" and Down came along and made it much more loaded with bad connotations. It's certainly not very... aware to use it, but at least it's not intentionally offensive.
I'd sum up the top of the chart as "Us, Them, and Everybody Else," and the side as "I Guess We Can't Get Out of Them Being Hominids, Let's Just Pretend There Aren't More."
Posted by: Brg | August 13, 2009 4:59 PM
Ok. I can not make sense of any of this.
a) Are Homo Erectus, Cro Magnon and Neanderthal races then?
b) If it is so, what happened to them? We have living people from the other 3 races, but skulls from these 3. When did god kill them off, and for what sin?
c) Have their creation scientists found Homo Erectus, Cro Magnon and Neanderthal skulls in the same rock strata, along with skulls of Homo Sapiens, which could give some basis to this assertion?
The funny thing is that creationists are like science hyenas: they can not for the life of them pull scientific advances from their holy book and righteous beliefs, but after real scientists put in the lion effort to dig out truth, they just come in masses to take it away, and rip it to shreds in order to re-arrange it, and give credence to their delusions. "It was always there, in the Book", they say. But always after the fact.
Brg
Posted by: jpf | August 13, 2009 4:59 PM
The creationist rebuttal, which I'm sure Ham will be posting in short order to his blog, would be that this isn't racist because it shows how all the races are from the same family and that Humans are all actually one race. And this is true. There isn't anything necessarily racist about what the poster is showing, given the premise that YEC are working from. All the human variations today had to come from the seven people on the Ark ~4000 years ago; they've got to go with either a form of the founder effect (which is what they are proposing) or propose some sort of spontaneous, rapid blackening/whitening of homogenous groups once they reached their continental destination (which would probably just end up sounding even more racist).
The problem though -- and why PZ and others should be highlighting these racist-seeming things coming from creationists -- is that Answers in Genesis and other creationist organizations show no qualms about pointing to things from the history of evolution, or misappropriations of evolution by racists, and saying that they show that evolution is an inherently racist theory.
They want to attack evolution and so they take things out of context and try to make them seem racist. Given that, it's appropriate to show how this same tactic could be done to them -- while of course qualifying that that doesn't mean that the people saying these things are actually racists, just that there has been a history of these ideas being used to support racism and slavery (as PZ did in that first post on the subject).
Hopefully this will give pause to any creationist who thinks about using accusations of racism against mainstream biological science. We could do the same to you, as you provide us ample material to draw on. Motes and logs, my friends.
Posted by: E.V. | August 13, 2009 5:01 PM
That's assuming child mortality rates = 0, that all couples are fertile and that no wars, famine, diseases and natural disasters result in periodically reducing large proportions of the populace during that given span of time.Posted by: Hugh | August 13, 2009 5:03 PM
haha NEGRO?
Posted by: ritebrother | August 13, 2009 5:04 PM
Gotta love the Ward Cleaver hairdoo, complete with Brylcreem, on the white guy.
Posted by: H.H. | August 13, 2009 5:06 PM
So what are Native Americans?
Posted by: Canuck | August 13, 2009 5:06 PM
To quote Kyle on South Park, "That was pretty fucked up right there."
Like I said in a comment in a different thread. There's no sipping on the straw of rationality for these people. They are impenetrable when it comes to logic and evidence. I spent years debating similar individuals. They BELIEVE, which blinds them to all else. Trying to dismantle religion is going to be a generations long endeavour. Never fully complete, but I think in 100 years we will be down to a much lower adherents figure. But that's only if we avoid a total holy war.
Some of you might be interested to go read Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale". It used to be fiction. Now it's looking like predictive documentary.
Posted by: Murray | August 13, 2009 5:07 PM
Also, dude, "mongoloid" is not the preferred nomenclature.
Posted by: daveau | August 13, 2009 5:07 PM
Which is why it has taken 4300 years. QED.
Posted by: Multicellular | August 13, 2009 5:09 PM
Hold on, doesn't this directly contradict the "museum's" own display that all races originated at the tower of Babel?
Posted by: Penguin_Factory | August 13, 2009 5:09 PM
..... "Mongoloid"? Maybe it's just where I'm from, but that word wouldn't exactly be greeted with enthusiasm by Asian people (and "Negro" is a bit iffy as well).
Posted by: James | August 13, 2009 5:13 PM
To the one mentioning mongoloid..
We HAVE three races, these are CALLED Caucasian, mongoloid and negroid. Thats it. All of us stem from various parts of these races. If you do not like to use the word 'race', well, tough luck? Thats the word?
The 'Human Race' and human races are seperate in definition, no 'racism' in this, just that because of our historical racism the word has become screwed up and people do not know what to use. Anyway, mongoloid is the asians in the racial definition. The Inkas and so forth stem from mongoloids as they travelled there (long before Europeans colonized Southern Americas) for example.
Posted by: CaptSasquatch | August 13, 2009 5:15 PM
It really sounds like this place should be dubbed "Ham's Believe it or Else!".
Posted by: Tulse | August 13, 2009 5:19 PM
That's a whole Ark-load of fail right there. Just because we have these labels doesn't mean that they identify anything biologically meaningful.
Posted by: James | August 13, 2009 5:20 PM
HH: So what are Native Americans?
They are mongoloid. See what a little bit of schooling can do for you :)
The problem here is the words, because of bullshit and crap around the world our words have become, eh, censured and we cant say Negroid, for example, which is the NAME for black people, just as Caucasian is for white, notice that american police refer to negroids as BLACK and whites as CAUCASIAN,so they use the proper word for whites but not for blacks because that words is 'oh so tough' for the blacks to handle...
tragic.
Posted by: scarn | August 13, 2009 5:22 PM
Yeah, but the usage here in combination with "negro" and a graphic for the white dude that looks like he belongs on the superfriends is just....square daddy-o. It just looks so dated.
Posted by: Ibis3 | August 13, 2009 5:23 PM
Of course, sense isn't an issue (if it were, there would be no Creationist "museum"). The "rationale" goes like this: God created humans in his own image. Everything else is an animal (no soul). Neanderthals are obviously not non-humans, ergo they must be descended from Adam & Eve. There is evidence for their existence that would have been destroyed had they not lived after the flood catastrophe, ergo, they must be direct descendants of Noah.
Just more painting themselves into absurd corners to justify their belief in the divine origin of their book.
Posted by: SEF | August 13, 2009 5:24 PM
Common ancestor isn't quite the same as being descendants in common - ie as a new extension of the standard potty creationist claim.
There are plenty of silly options. Just because Noah only had 3 sons pre-flood, doesn't mean he and Mrs Noah couldn't have got bored on the boat trip (or afterwards) - and the creationists are quite fond of the idea of deleterious mutations. Since they're already requiring everything else to evolve and diversify very rapidly post-flood, why not include the humans doing this to ridiculous extremes too.
Then again, Noah and his sons and their respective wives were stuck on board with all those other primates too ...
Posted by: fiona25
|
August 13, 2009 5:25 PM
Horrifiying!
OT - did people see this, organised by Living waters for November?
http://www.livingwaters.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=398&Itemid=34
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
August 13, 2009 5:25 PM
Does Mortenson wear a bib? I conclude that he must be drooling all the time after seeing his 'science'.
Posted by: scarn | August 13, 2009 5:25 PM
Oh wow you suck!
Posted by: AnneH | August 13, 2009 5:25 PM
@Alyson Miers, #38
I think you have a good point. Maintaining confusion and sustaining cognitive dissonance does prevent the religious followers from actually taking the time to think, and work out that it's all a bunch of nonsense.
IMO, When someone sincerely believes a number of contradictory ideas simultaneously, it's difficult to fit truly new concepts into their thought processes - they just don't have the mental energy to cope. They are too busy subconsciously trying to rationalize opposing notions into making sense.
Posted by: The Bible is Useless
|
August 13, 2009 5:27 PM
So were the Native Americans "Negro" or "Mongoloid"? Or does Ham follow the Mormons on that one? And I guess that dispensation on marrying your sister that applied to Cain doesn't apply to Noah's kids, because you have to be pretty inbred to have your kids end up Homo Erectus.
And to answer an earlier question, homo floresiensis are just leprechauns, which are still with us today. They aren't in the human family, just like unicorns are not in the horse family, so therefore don't belong on this VERY scientific chart.
Posted by: not a gator | August 13, 2009 5:28 PM
@8
Actually, it looks to me like Mr. Caucasian got sufficient lines to look like he has a permanent tension headache (although not enough lines to be a Rob Liefeld centerfold). I think there are actually more, finer lines than are clear from the pic because of the compression.
Mr. Mongoloid looks the most sympathetic. Furthermore, he's placed furthest from Neandertal. I mean, just sayin'.
(PS: Some white supremacists were disappointed to find out that Europeans did not descend from Neandertals. Pride in being a thick-skulled maroon. Google "die blonde Bestie.")
Posted by: Ariel | August 13, 2009 5:29 PM
The term Mongoloid is NOT used in Anthropology. Anthropologists have been among the first to discredit the theory of different "races." Traits do not covary, there is far more variation within a "race" then between them, the whole concept of race is cultural, and is in no way a meaningful biological category.
Posted by: Tulse | August 13, 2009 5:30 PM
Yeah, it's pretty darned underhanded what they're doing -- would they let folks hand out an atheist-annotated Bible at their religious colleges?
That said, I found this part hilarious:
Ya know, if one actually believed in a Higher Power, one might also believe it was sending them a message...
Posted by: not a gator | August 13, 2009 5:30 PM
Damn straight! This batshit ain't nearly biblical enough!
Posted by: Relativistic | August 13, 2009 5:31 PM
What the hell is a 'BA in math'? A BA is a bachelor of ARTS- every maths graduate I know holds a BSc. I'm not questioning its existence, but I question its usefulness.
Posted by: James | August 13, 2009 5:32 PM
> So were the Native Americans "Negro" or "Mongoloid"?
Cheezes christ, do you guys have no education?
Native Americans are MONGOLOID. Their (our) ancestors travelled through Asia and over to northern america and further down populating the two continents. This is history guys, you cant be as daft as creationists?
Posted by: Feshy | August 13, 2009 5:35 PM
That's assuming child mortality rates = 0, that all couples are fertile and that no wars, famine, diseases and natural disasters result in periodically reducing large proportions of the populace during that given span of time.
Even so, the number of offspring each person needs to have to hit 7 billion in 6,000 years is just over one. Even if you assume that half of all offspring die before reaching breading age, you would still only need just over two (four children per couple), a not totally unreasonable number.
Of course, it also would mean the pyramids were built by all 200 or so people living at the time...
Posted by: MK | August 13, 2009 5:35 PM
I guess skulls belong to the females in the family..hehe!
Posted by: No BS | August 13, 2009 5:35 PM
I mock thee Ken Ham... I mock thee.
Posted by: Carlie | August 13, 2009 5:37 PM
James, you are a total blithering idiot. Sub-Saharan African tribes have more genetic diversity than any other group, and every other group of people on the planet has a genetic signature that is a subset of their diversity. So how are they a different race again?
Posted by: scarn | August 13, 2009 5:39 PM
I'm sure we are all familiar with this. The reason the question about racial categories is being asked is because most educated people nowadays don't find them very useful and don't think in those terms.
Posted by: Mathematician | August 13, 2009 5:43 PM
I hold a BA in mathematics, from the University of Cambridge. Dates from the days before there were degrees in science, I believe...
Coventry University, where this guy's PhD comes from is, errm, not a world-leading research university. However, nobody should be surprised that they don't "offer" PhDs in his subject: PhDs in the UK are not organised into programmes in the way familiar in the US. If the university at some point had a staff member who worked in X, then it makes sense that they gave a PhD in X to a student - all that's required is a supervisor and a thesis.
Posted by: jpf | August 13, 2009 5:45 PM
fiona25 #80: That's not OT. It shows exactly the sort of tactical racism accusations I mentioned above. From the book's description:
The "undeniable connections" between Hitler and evolution will, of course, conveniently overlook how Hitler's justification for eugenics in Mein Kampf was that mankind has degenerated from its perfect state when it was created in the image of God and that natural selection isn't working on humans so intelligent agents need to act to keep the Jews from out-competing the Aryans. "Darwin's racism" will be a reference to how the full title of the Origin of the Species contains the phrase "Favoured Races" (which in the context of the book is a reference to breeds of pigeons, etc.) and that Darwin occasionally used the term "savage" (nevermind that he was concerned about the plight of those "savages", unlike the Christian captain of the Beagle, and he supported abolition of slavery, unlike many of his Christian contemporaries in the US, who were arguing that slavery was God's will based on the "Curse of Ham" theory of the origins of Africans).
But of course, Ray Comfort isn't a racist.
Posted by: Qwerty
|
August 13, 2009 5:50 PM
Full review of horrible presentation is interesting. I recommend it.
Posted by: Newfie | August 13, 2009 5:50 PM
Tophe at 33
Any math geniuses here want to spec this one out? I'm curious to the average number of children every woman would have to give birth to, to make this one plausible.
Posted by: Travis | August 13, 2009 5:51 PM
Not the first YEC associated with Coventry University either. As has been noted in a number of places now, the DI's Biologic Institute has hired three new YEC, one of them being Colin Reeves, Emeritus Professor of Operational Research, School of Mathematical and Information Sciences, Coventry University.
Travis
http://pretendbiologist.blogspot.com
Posted by: David | August 13, 2009 5:55 PM
My stupid and offended meters just broke...again.
Posted by: Jason | August 13, 2009 5:55 PM
I had the misfortune of sitting through the lecture on Friday. I wish I had a video of it because it was so Freaking stupid (one bucket for apes and one bucket for humans). It actually was physically painful to listen to. I wasn't sure whether to yell out in anger or to laugh out loud. The all-white audience consisted mostly of creationists I would guess given the laughter moments (whenever evolution was being made fun of) and of course the amens (whenever there was a mention of gawd). I talked to one college kid that was with our group that said he would put a video of the lecuture on youtube. I haven't seen that posted anywhere. Anyone?
In any case, the racism was right out in front. When the professor talked about blacks (with the slide of Negroids, Mongloids, Ape-men, etc on display) - he made reference to some peoples that "we would call black people".
Dr. M used this slide at the end of the lecture...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/nab/evolution-races.jpg
I still can't believe it - I still can't believe they would show this to the public at large. And BTW - it's still on their website under the folder labeled "assets". I wonder if they do a visual race check of the audience before the lecture starts... I wonder does the security officer do a visual check as you go through the door to the special effects theater and tell the "professor" we've got Condition White, over - it's safe to use the racist's shit.
OMG.
Posted by: scarn | August 13, 2009 6:00 PM
Jason, please tell me that you are making that up. Please??!!
Posted by: Zar | August 13, 2009 6:00 PM
James, don't you have a cross burning to go to?
Posted by: Erp | August 13, 2009 6:02 PM
@#89 U. Minnesota has both a BA and a BS.Math Math degrees
Posted by: sharky | August 13, 2009 6:04 PM
@Feshy, 91: Don't forget the Flood was put at about 3000 years ago. So you need some of Noah's children immediately sprinting off to South America and some of them immediately charging into Japan and China to build things there.
The obvious solution is that Noah's children could both clone themselves and teleport.
@Anyone saying Native Americans are Mongoloid:
No.
(If you want to stick to it that any genetic differences are unimportant, that's cool: we can *all* move straight into the Negroid category!)
Posted by: Josh
|
August 13, 2009 6:05 PM
A lot of the older universities only confer a BA (or an AB) in liberal arts type subjects, regardless of what that subject is, even if it's something like physics or math. It's a holdover from a...more civilized age.
Posted by: not a gator | August 13, 2009 6:06 PM
@48
I guess you're referring to the now completely trashed theory that homo sapiens originated in the Caucasus?
I followed some links here and thought I'd share:
http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007
Worth it to read carefully. So much ideology involved but it boils down to you can group humans genetically by continent of ancestry. Skin color is a red herring (ie, Ethiopians are part of European group, Aztequi and Inuit in same Native American group). Makes sense because before airplanes, humans didn't travel far in one lifetime; and it turns out skin color changes[changed] quickly to suit environment. Rickets.
Posted by: Sarah | August 13, 2009 6:08 PM
Ham and company aren't even nodding acquaintances with reality.
Posted by: John | August 13, 2009 6:09 PM
Hi, I'd like to make some comments and ask some questions and I thought I might just bang them in here if that's ok. I was hoping I could get some constructive replies and criticism.
Sorry if it's a little long and not quite on-topic.
First point:
The initial push encouraging the 'outing' of atheists was necessary, but current situation still leaves some things to be desired.
Accomodationism debate:
1. Best point on atheist side: still religious 'fundamentalists' who could be
argued to have negative effects on the world and that can only really be engaged in confrontational manner.
2. Best point on 'accomodationist' side: not all religious believers like this. Plenty that we can get along well
with and who can accept evolution/science/knowledge and social rights (e.g. rights for homosexuals etc).
Counterpoints from each, re best points:
1. Confrontation puts off the more open-minded and creates negative
impression, minimising chance they will bother to listen to you (since they have that choice and lots of competing opinion).
2. These people only accept these things by essentially ignoring their religion. Not 'true believers'. Just
plain fluffy-minded.
Obviously this can continue on for a while.
However, a first-cut suggestion: now that atheists have been well 'outed', why
not focus primarily on public agnosticism (i.e. agnosticism/secular values for public policy) while maintaining personal and
within-group atheism?
This is still sufficiently antagonistic to those who want God directly involved in day to day life and public
policy, but is in-line with the 'agnostic believer' i.e. those with a more 'subtle' form of belief which is not as dangerous. If we could
join forces with the agnostics to some extent e.g. with respect to public policy we would potentially avoid many side-tracking issues.
We could essentially argue the same points: e.g. science/evol tends to encourage an agnostic view of the world, with each side then
making additional separate arguments if they wish to encourage atheistic agnosticism vs religious agnosticism.
This would surely be a first step towards whatever world we want, but avoid an ugly split between the (for lack of better descriptors)
hardline/strict atheists and the more pragmatic/accommodating atheists, which seems to be possibly happening to some extent. It might
also make new allies with regard to the really important things e.g. teaching best science in schools, social rights, etc.
This of course seems a bit naive to me, but it's a first cut. Any thoughts, criticisms or suggestions?
Posted by: CDA | August 13, 2009 6:11 PM
I'm not shocked. But really... come on! I think somewhere in my first lower division anthropology class (over ten years ago now) we discussed the antiquated form of human categorization that is caucasoid, negroid, monogloid, et cetera (Coon, Brace, et al) for it's place in the _history_ of anthropology. There is some debate still, but it is considered to be the result of a flawed methodology (grouping by "race" during the initial research and basically working backwards, muddling phenotype and genotype).
Again, this is standard behaviour for creationists. Using the limited knowledge gained during secondary school as the basis for all arguments. Akin to their using of the animals familiar at the zoo as the basis for discussing biological diversity rather than the tomes of information available on the ~1.6 million currently identified species and thousands of transitional forms.
Posted by: mds | August 13, 2009 6:13 PM
Assume that each generation is 20 years apart (yes, until recently it would have started younger, but not all kids survive, etc.). 4300 years divided by 20 years is 215 generations. We want to know the rate of growth g such that
8 * g215 = 6.7e9
Divide by 8 on both sides gives us
g215 = 837500000
Taking the log on both sides, we get
215 log(g) = 20.55
log(g) = 0.096
g = 100.096 = 1.24
This tells us that for every person in each generation, there would have to be a replacement, plus a bit under a quarter of another child. Since only women can bear children, they have to pick up the slack for the men. Assuming that women make up half the population, we get an average of about 2.5 children per woman per generation that survive to the next generation. The average growth rate per year would be about 1.2%, which is close to the growth rate predicted by the UN in 2000. Of course, this is the growth rate for a world in which many major diseases have been eliminated, food is much more plentiful, and people are less likely to get killed in war. If half of one's children were expected to die before they had a chance to reproduce, or if none of their children reproduce, then each mother would have to bear an average of 5 children.
Posted by: AdamK | August 13, 2009 6:14 PM
So if Native Americans are mongoloid because their ancestors came from Asia, what are the Ainu? How about the South Pacific folks? What about the Dravidians? Are they mongoloids too? This is all so kerfusin.
Posted by: sharky | August 13, 2009 6:14 PM
John:
A. What?
B. *Seriously* recommending you create a blog post of your own and link your own discussion next time there's a post on accomodationism. It'd make the discussion much easier to keep track of. Plus this screen format is meant for comments and short things, so it's really hard to follow that (see point A.)
Posted by: not a gator | August 13, 2009 6:16 PM
@59
Naw, he looks like reboot Sulu. (John Cho from Harold and Kumar, and oh boy, does he ever look like that drawing.) I think Spock's the gay one in the reboot, the Uhura smooch notwithstanding.
Posted by: John | August 13, 2009 6:22 PM
sharky:
Yeah, sorry a bit random I know. Dunno about creating my own blog... not sure exactly how to have the discussion then though...Oh well, sorry, I retract my comment, back to the 'origins of the races' or whatever it was I posted in the middle of.
Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 13, 2009 6:22 PM
Gareth L. Owen @ 2:
Zealot: Evolution does not happen. God made us all perfect, just the way we are. We're all descendants of Noah and his family.
Thinker: You do realize that we have actually seen evolution in a lab, right? Bacteria will evolve before your very eyes.
Zealot: Uh, um, er . . . no! What we've seen is microevolution. We've never seen one species become another species. Bacteria might become another kind of bacteria, but they don't become frogs.
Thinker: Ah. So, do you at least acknowledge that there are millions of species, and that millions have gone extinct?
Zealot: Of course.
Thinker: So, what then? Noah got millions of species on his boat?
Zealot: The Bible doesn't say "species." It says "kinds." There weren't as many kinds as there are species. He could fit all the kinds on the ark. Ha!
Thinker: So, on the ark, there were only a certain number of kinds, a small enough number to fit on a boat. And we're all descendants of those kinds?
Zealot: Exactly.
Thinker: But now, there are millions of different species that could not have fit on the ark?
Zealot: Now, you're getting it.
Thinker: So, without macroevolution (i.e. speciation; microevolution over a long period of time) how is it all the species here now are descendants of Noah's family?
Zealot: What!? No, no! I didn't say---- I mean----
Thinker: Yes?
Zealot: You'll be the first tossed into the eternal pit of fire when my magical savior zooms down out of the sky, heathen!
Thinker: I don't think you've thought this through.
:)
Posted by: AdamK | August 13, 2009 6:22 PM
I'm an atheist. That's one point I have in common with others who don't believe in any gods.
I don't tend to join groups, or to conform to some group plan someone else has set down for their own strategic or political reasons. There are times when I'm outspoken and times I'm quiet. Depends on the circumstances.
I don't pretend to speak for anyone else.
Before you can start planning what a group should do, you should make sure there's a cohesive group. That's my two cents, at least.
Posted by: Siamang | August 13, 2009 6:23 PM
Um...
So which "Variation" was Noah?
Was he a black dude who sired the first Japanese dude in history? Was he a Neandertal dude who had a white baby with a black twin brother?
Those would be great questions for the q and a. Lotsa room for them to put their foot in their great big racist mouths.
Posted by: not a gator | August 13, 2009 6:24 PM
@73 (James)
As has been pointed out and linked to already on this thread, you are wrong. Your labels are obsolete, and there are five.
You are missing the Pacific Islander/Australian Aborigine group and the Native American group.
Also, the Negroid group is now the African group, and Mongoloid is not the preferred name for the East Asian group (Asiatic?). Genetic testing showed, for example, that Ethiopians fall into the Caucasian or European group.
I posted a link that goes into detail about CONTINENT and GENES. In it, they explain that SKIN COLOR (which the term "NEGROID" refers to) DOES NOT necessarily correlate to continental genetic clusters.
Before airplanes genes moved at the pace of human feet. Your closest relations are closest in miles. Of course now we have to go by where your ancestors lived a couple centuries ago, but whatever.
Posted by: BMS | August 13, 2009 6:27 PM
Okayokayokay O. K.
"Noah's family: 8 people"
There are 6 arrows radiating from the "ark."
3 of those 6 arrows point to skulls. Which are dead, right?
The other 3 arrows point to male humans.
1. Which of those 3 males is Noah? Cuz . . .
2. 8 minus 6 = 2: Where are the female humans? And . . .
3. The 2 missing female humans must have had to split their time between the 3 males in order to propagate the 3 males' "races," right? So . . .
4. What "race" were the 2 females? I sense teh ebul race-mixing.
5. Which of the 8 people ("Noah's" children amirite? or "Noah" and his wife??) was the Cro Magnon, who was Homo Erectus, and which one was Neanderthal (and - with whom did each of them breed - as one would assume they did as we have found skeletal remains of more than one of each)? Ooooo oooo, wait: they were female, they were impregnated the "ark", and once on dry land, bore - what - fraternal quadruplets of different genders? Did "Noah" have that many daughters? Or . . .
3 (revised) The 2 missing female humans must have had to split their time between 6 males????
My brain hurts . . .
Posted by: Zach Miller | August 13, 2009 6:30 PM
Wait wait wait...sorry. Does that say "Negro?"
Posted by: not a gator | August 13, 2009 6:32 PM
@102
Guess this dumbass never met anyone from the Indian sub-continent.
I read (thanks to this group) I guess a month ago that most everyone has all the genes for dark skin but phenotype expression varies. (Personally, I wonder about us Celts b/c we, uh, don't tan. I think there's a broken gene or two in there. I've met several mixed African-Irish Americans who have similar, er, problems. Ya burn--bad--and then the freckles sprout. And then the melanoma 20 years later.)
How much nonsense has been spread by trying to categorize the world according to skin color?
What a 'duh' moment to see that the Y and mRNA lines follow the paths trod by human feet.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 13, 2009 6:34 PM
Woah! Insane.
Posted by: Newfasoid | August 13, 2009 6:34 PM
Science Blog, Science terms.
Caucasiod: named after the Caucasus Mountains between the Black and Caspian seas.
Negroid: The term has its etymological roots in the Latin word niger (black), with the earliest recorded use of the term "Negroid" in 1859. Likely from the area of the Niger River
Mongoloid: named after the Mongol Empire
Posted by: sue blue | August 13, 2009 6:36 PM
In one of my frequent arguments with my "Every Word of the Holy Bible is Absolutely True Down to the Last Detail Because God Says So" literalist mom, I got her to pause when I asked her how come she finds natural selection over millions of years incredible but thinks that millions of species diverging over a few thousand years from the few animals Noah could have crammed into a boat is perfectly plausible. These people can't seem to understand the contradiction at all; they're perfectly willing to argue out of both sides of their mouths whenever it suits them.
Posted by: MikeM | August 13, 2009 6:37 PM
I find this poster so f-ing offensive, it's making me tremble.
That's all I got.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 13, 2009 6:41 PM
not a gator, #115
Nah, Spock is Aspergers. Matter of fact, the whole species is Aspergers.
Though it would be interesting to learn if there are any connections with variant sexuality and autism spectrum disorders.
Posted by: MikeM | August 13, 2009 6:46 PM
By the way, Nikki, if you're still out there, I hope you're reading this thread.
This attitude isn't as uncommon as you might think.
I think you need to email this "Good Doctor" and ask for his evidence. As someone pointed out, Noah had 8 kids.
Posted by: MikeM | August 13, 2009 6:48 PM
No, I'm wrong, Noah had 6 kids.
Sorry about that.
Posted by: Holbach | August 13, 2009 7:00 PM
It's a wonder your brains did not turn to mush just getting past the door. And then once you breathed that atmosphere of pure insane drivel, it's a wonder you didn't collapse from the sheer onslaught of rampant stupidity. Maybe some day an earthquake will swallow the whole crap pile and gorge it back up as a geological phenomena for future retards.
Posted by: Jason | August 13, 2009 7:01 PM
@103
it's true - they showed that slide to a room full of white people.
On a side note - for those interested in learning about the true story of race, I would suggest the book Deep Ancestry, by Spencer Wells. It explains the genetic story. Turns out that we are all related and we all share a common ancestor - mtDNA eve @ about 100,000 years ago. Referring to mtDNA haplogroup L0/L1 - "current genetic data indicates that indigenous people belonging to these groups are found exclusively in Africa, which supports the notion that the earliest humans orginated in Africa."
So we all share a common ancestor and according to the genetic evidence, that ancestor was get ready for it.... black, not white nor 'middle-brown' (AiG term) as AiG suggests...
Posted by: MikeM | August 13, 2009 7:01 PM
One more question... Noah had six kids with him on the boat: Who was having sex with whom after the journey to ensure this racial makeup would remain intact?
Was the Asian guy gettin' with the Cro Mag? If so, wouldn't we see signs of that in all Asians today?
Do these people think before talking?
Posted by: arensb | August 13, 2009 7:04 PM
It's quite clear from a lot of the displays that the AiG folks do believe in evolution. Just evolution thousands or millions of times faster than any evolutionary biologist would dream of, fast enough for a pair of "proto-canids" to diversify into coyotes and chihuahuas in a few thousand years. They say themselves that 200-300 species of rhinoceros appeared in the first couple of centuries after Ye Floode, which means a new speciation event every year or so.
They just don't call it evolution, because, um... it's just allele frequency change in populations over time. You can't call that evolution.
Posted by: AndrewB | August 13, 2009 7:11 PM
It is sickening how they use "science" on one hand they claim that science and Darwin has led to horrible things like the holocaust, and it evil and wrong. While at the same time trying to say that science supports all their claims. Then to be so oblivious to their own racism, or how the bible has been used to justify horrible things like slavery.
It's a good thing real science isn't being presented at the creation "museum."
Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 13, 2009 7:11 PM
MikeM @ 133:
Heh, the Bible is rather explicit about all the incest that goes on with the deity's blessing. It was okay back then, for that culture, at that time. Just not now. Or something like that.
They're either say, "Yes, and that is what we see. Only scientists deny it;" or "No, god makes each of us unique, and that's what we see today."
Or, they'll just make up something equally inane.
They don't think at all. Thinking leads to questioning; questioning leads to doubting; doubting leads to eternal suffering in the universe's most exquisite torture chamber.
So, they make it a practice not to think. Orwell called it "Crimestop."
Posted by: jpf | August 13, 2009 7:19 PM
Noah had three male offspring who had wives who were not Noah's offspring. That of course doesn't really do away with the incest problem, of course, since they were all the offspring of Adam and Eve from ~2000 years earlier (which was what? a handful of generations among people who supposedly lived to ages in the hundreds) and since Noah's grandchildren necessarily must have mated with each other.
Posted by: DaveL | August 13, 2009 7:31 PM
Don't be silly. Do you actually think someone who would publish a poster like this considers women people?
Posted by: Lou FCD | August 13, 2009 7:40 PM
mds @ 112
You forgot to account for the number of people eaten by T-rex.
duh.
Posted by: co | August 13, 2009 7:41 PM
Relativistic, @ 89: Meet yet another guy with undergrad degrees of a B.A. in math, and a B.A. in physics. It's confusing; I don't think a B.Sc. confers any more knowledge on a student than a B.A. in the same subject.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
August 13, 2009 7:56 PM
Which degrees are conferred depend on the university or college. I have a BS and MA in economics from two separate universities. My undergraduate school gave a BS if one took nine credits (three courses) in math and a BA if one took nine credits in a language. Since economics majors had to take two statistics courses (considered math) and pre-calculus algebra was a requirement for statistics, the vast majority of economics degrees granted by that university were BSs. My graduate school gave science degrees in science and arts degrees in liberal arts. Since economics is a liberal art, I got an MA.
Posted by: Dust | August 13, 2009 8:04 PM
One thing that has come through to me from the "museum" visit, is just how boring their "science" is. It's a snore.
I read alot of general public books on science: Dawkins, Hawking, Pinker, and others, and the fact that they are so interesting, and I read about some much science I didn't know, such as some genes were named after a video game..who knew? They keep me coming back for more.
But this creation stuff--there is no depth, no discovery-the poster above goes from Noah to modern people and extinct homind species whitout any in-depth analysis, investigation, stories of discoveries, nothing!
Godidit ideology--BORING!
Posted by: Caymen Paolo Diceda | August 13, 2009 8:14 PM
Peter Karim posted the link to the Creation Museum's science fair guidelines. Embedded therein is a link to AiG's "faith" statement (http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith). Have a look. This is why we make little progress in logical discussion with these people. They have explicitly excluded anything that contradicts the book of fairy tales or faith in THEIR version of a god.
Posted by: Ben S | August 13, 2009 8:22 PM
Holy crap. Did they really have to make the black guy's lips that big?
Posted by: Bench | August 13, 2009 8:23 PM
Methinks there is a chapter missing from Genesis (or whatever). Ham's descendants were cursed due to Ham seeing Noah naked, and thus they turned up "Negro". I can only imagine what three horrible sights Cro Magnon, Homo erectus and Neanderthal stumbled upon in order to end up being represented and remembered only by skulls, in spite of having been initially worthy of surviving the flood that washed away... how many sinners?
* Noah masturbating?
* Noah fucking a goat?
* Noah fucking a dinosaur? (raaaar)
* Noah conducting a postmortem on the success of his very first boat and maiden sea voyage?
* Maybe Mrs. Noah copulating with one of her sons? (How many daughters did Noah have? Or did his sons already have wives? I don't even know)
In any case, this placard is pretty absurd. BTW, I have read several accounts of the CM and perused multiple photo sets over the last couple of years and this is the first I have seen of this particular image? Did I just miss it or is it new?
Posted by: Quixotic | August 13, 2009 8:24 PM
I agree that dividing people into races seems a bit archaic, but in medicine it is sometimes important to know if a patient is "negroid or caucasoid", right? I mean, that's the only place where i see a use for these divisive terms...
Posted by: progressive homeschooler | August 13, 2009 8:27 PM
Negro? Mongoloid? Is this 1950?
Posted by: Captain Mike | August 13, 2009 8:35 PM
@Bench:
I think it was part of a presentation some guy was giving. I assume he brought it with him.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 13, 2009 8:37 PM
"This is crazy--what kind of "Dr" is this guy?"
At a guess . . . Dr. Evil. I wonder if he has a mini-me?
Posted by: Ibis3 | August 13, 2009 8:44 PM
Hi John. Try bringing up your question at the LOR Forums here: http://forums.leagueofreason.co.uk/
I'm sure you can get a good discussion going.
Posted by: Steve | August 13, 2009 8:50 PM
Wow. They think that blacks are a different species? Sure sheds a lot of light on current events.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 13, 2009 9:01 PM
This chart is so far beyond mere mortal stupidity that it is almost enough to make you believe in the supernatural. Some being of sublime (and ridiculous) stupidity. A creature of radient folishness. Surely no mere human agency could scale such Olympian heights of idiocy? No Homo Sapien could be so devoid of sense and reason. One would assume that no person, even one of significantly subnormal intelligence, could actually take this drivel seriously. We must remember, however, that we are dealing with creationalists. In such circumstances, we must never underestimate the stupid.
Even so, a chart that attempts to place differences between human ethnic groups on a par with differences between species of hominid? Seriously? A chart that has a laughably unsophisticated grasp of ethnicity and also ignores numerous species of hominid. And lets not forget that we are expected to believe that all these groups came forth as part of Noah's family a mere instant of evolutionary time ago. So Noah, a modern human, gave rise to proto-human species? I find it difficult to express my contempt for this rubbish or the anti-scientific morons who promote it. Only the young Earth creationists and their ilk could ever come up with something so patently ridiculous and expect anyone else to take it seriously.
Posted by: Brg | August 13, 2009 9:05 PM
Arensb said @134:
"Just evolution thousands or millions of times faster than any evolutionary biologist would dream of, fast enough for a pair of "proto-canids" to diversify into coyotes and chihuahuas in a few thousand years. They say themselves that 200-300 species of rhinoceros appeared in the first couple of centuries after Ye Floode, which means a new speciation event every year or so."
I was thinking after this that why don't we turn their own arguments back against them? Where are the archaeological remains of these "proto-animals"? Where is the "proto-canid"? Where is their presence apparent in the art and culture of the people living after the flood? Furthermore, if these proto-animals microevolved into myriads of animals in a short span of time, why aren't we seeing more species appearing in recent times?
Brg
Posted by: sharky | August 13, 2009 9:19 PM
@146: Yes and no.
Yes because there are genetic risk factors that relate to different groups by what we recognise as race; no, because those groups aren't narrowed in three categories, and there are different genetic groups within the defined groups.
And they're just not accurate. It's kind of silly to make a note that your patient is a bad candidate for laser dermatology because her Mongoloid skin makes it likely she'll suffer bad complications, when your patient happens to be a Native American.
Posted by: DaveL | August 13, 2009 9:25 PM
No, fast enough for a pair of "proto-felines" to diversify into housecats and freaking lions before anyone in the ancient world could notice. Seriously, has anybody found a cuneiform tablet bearing what amounts to "By Marduk's beard, what have you been feeding that cat?"
Posted by: jpf | August 13, 2009 9:38 PM
Steve #151: "They think that blacks are a different species?"
No. They don't.
Gregory Greenwood #152: "Even so, a chart that attempts to place differences between human ethnic groups on a par with differences between species of hominid? Seriously?"
You have it backwards. They are trying to dismiss the existence of neanderthals and H. erectus as proto-humans or separate lineages (since that obviously undermines their belief that humans were created ex nihilo) by saying that they were merely variations of a single species of humans, like whites, blacks, and asians are. This isn't about distancing races, it's about denying the existence of non-human hominids.
Posted by: Jason | August 13, 2009 9:40 PM
I mentioned the "Middle Brown" language from AiG's crazy website. Here's some of the nonsense -
It is likely that Noah and his family were "middle brown"? How is it likely? Why is this likely? Well AiG explains it this way -
All very interesting but no evidence is provided for any of these assertions. Not that it matters because there most likely was never actually a Noah and we can be almost 100%certain that there never was a global flood (as certain as science will allow). Ham's minions are using the term "likely" which of course means that Ham is making assumptions. OMG - That's what Ham accused scientists (and PZ) of doing yesterday. Wow - that's almost the definition of hypocritical - "someone who pretends to live by a set of values, but in fact does not."
Now for the real story again quoting from Deep Ancestry.
After a discussion on the pigment gene MC1R gene and the implications... .
Here's the point I'm trying to make...
Thus, AiG's assertion that our ancestors were "middle-brown" is of course simply an assertion which is not based on evidence but is simply based on faith. According to the genetic evidence the real Adam and Eve (which were separated by 100,000+ years) were Africans who were according to the science were most likely "dark-skinned" not "middle brown". The middle brown idea is simply wishful thinking. What's wrong Ken - Can't accept the notion that your ancestors were black?
Okay so what difference does a little detail like this make? It's really a matter of truth telling. AiG is not telling the truth - that should be clear to any thinking person.
From the external view, it's clear that AiG is promoting the idea that there are no big difference between the races. Yes, that is correct, but they are ignoring the science and they are overlooking the interesting details of the real story. At the same time, in the same lecture or same website they equate an ignorant looking ape-men fantasy with the "Negroid" and "Caucasoid" types. The same folks also seem to support the Hamite theory (a racist view). Hmmm.
Bottom line - Shame on Ham and his minions for the lies they continue to spread.
Posted by: Paula Helm Murray | August 13, 2009 9:54 PM
I have not seen such a breathtakingly ignorant depiction of races in a long time. My father (bless his soul) was a new earth creationist and had this crap in his library. And kept helpfully giving it to me to read.
AFTER I'd gotten a college degree (if U. Kans. had given minor when I was attending, I'd have a minor in Biology/Natural History).
I quickly realized that I could not argue with someone who insisted that his faith MUST abide (despite any reason, and HE had a B.S. in Geology from Tex. A&M, acquired in the 40s). So when he'd try to start an argument (or in his framing "educate you, you godless wench of a daughter"), I'd just go, "I'm not going to talk about it. It is not worth arguing with you."
He quickly realized I was actually, sort of, baiting him, but in a way that if he'd risen in his own way, mom would have started yelling at both of us to shut up and stop it.
I do do my best to support the side of reason and science. I just won't get into an argument with a creationist, it isn't worth the trouble and energy.
Posted by: Alan Krueger | August 13, 2009 9:56 PM
"What the hell is a 'BA in math'? A BA is a bachelor of ARTS- every maths graduate I know holds a BSc. I'm not questioning its existence, but I question its usefulness."
Careful, you're insulting my alma mater--UMM, the institution at which PZ is on the faculty--which only grants a B.A. even for science majors.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
August 13, 2009 9:56 PM
The BA/BS distinction usually has nothing to do with the discipline. At one university where I taught, the major difference was that the BA degree had greater requirements in the liberal arts -- a BA in math, for instance, would have the same math requirements as the BS, but had additional requirements in foreign languages.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 13, 2009 10:01 PM
Where could Answers in Genesis possibly have found a model to pose for that "EVOLUTIONARY ANCESTOR" picture?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 13, 2009 10:02 PM
PZ is right. It all depends on the U. Where I did my underguaduate work, the BS/Chem. required German as the foreign language, and one extra senior level course.
Posted by: The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge | August 13, 2009 10:03 PM
@ Brg # 153:
You underestimate their dishonesty. Cats are depicted in Egyptian art (before their "flood" mind you!) and mummies of Ancient Egyptian cats are just like modern cats. This "proves evolution doesn't happen."
But those cats and cheetahs and pumas and cougars and panthers and tigers and leopards (and snow leopards will evolve next month) all developed from one "kind" that came off Noah's Ark sometime during the Egyptian 3rd Dynasty! (And the Egyptians never noticed the worldwide flood!) There's no talking to these people.
Posted by: flim flam | August 13, 2009 10:03 PM
Bench, you owe me a new keyboard, your post about noah fucking a dinosaur made me spit coke all over it. Rrrarrr! noah and t-rex doing it dino style!. Maybe poor cro mag is the result of their unholy coupling? a human- dino hybrid. Hey, it's no more unlikely than any of the other crap at the CM.
Posted by: Allan W Janssen | August 13, 2009 10:05 PM
I think the best explaination I ever heard describing these assholes is that they are a bunch of people who refuse to believe we came from apes, but have no problem believing that we were made from a lump of dirt! Or was that shit?
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | August 13, 2009 10:17 PM
Makes you wish you could talk about 20 active duty USMC ("all different colors but they all bleed green") into attending Dr Lobotomy's little goebbellian lecture. I wonder if he'd even be able to get a word out, or if he'd just stand there and urinate down his leg?
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 13, 2009 10:43 PM
So they admitt, in their poster, that there are distinct human categories that were different from each other. And Ken Ham doesn't call himself a racist. pfft.
And I can name two reason why Homo Neanderthalis and Homo Erectus are different species from Homo Sapian: the more pronounced occipital bun and brow ridges.
These posters soils my anthropoligst eyes.
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
August 13, 2009 11:01 PM
Hey, Ken Ham and Terry Mortenson,
The 1920s called.*
They want their eugenics back.
Recommended reading: Selden, S. (1999). Inheriting shame: The story of eugenics and racism in America. New York: Teachers College Press.
No kings,
Robert
*Connected via switchboard operator, naturally.
Posted by: dinkum | August 13, 2009 11:03 PM
The "Evolutionary Ancestor" in that final slide looks like...Ken Ham. Seriously.
And speaking (a bit OT) of His Hamness, his newest post on AiG contains this tidbit:
Does that jive up with the heathen version?
Posted by: raven | August 13, 2009 11:04 PM
Not to mention that we have a lot of DNA sequence from Neanderthals. I think they have half or two thirds of the genomic and all the mitochondrial sequence.
Posted by: 386sx | August 13, 2009 11:09 PM
Hey that white dude looks like Lyle Waggoner.
Posted by: Dev | August 13, 2009 11:15 PM
This isn't funny. Forget Jason and Freddy Kruger. This is real-life horror. ::Shakes his head in complete despair:: These people are real...I can't believe these people are real...
Posted by: JHS
|
August 13, 2009 11:22 PM
He's batshit crazy for sure, but the thought of white folk springing fulling formed from the primordial ooze in bowler and topcoat tickles me to no end.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 13, 2009 11:27 PM
dinkum said:
You're not alone; I definitely saw the resemblance, too.Posted by: AndyD | August 13, 2009 11:27 PM
I'm with dinkum. When I saw the final slide I thought it was something someone had morphed from Ken Ham's photo. Love to see them side by side.
Posted by: 386sx | August 13, 2009 11:37 PM
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/really-a-flood-and-ark
"God also used the Flood to separate and to purify those who believed in Him from those who didn't. Throughout history and throughout the Bible, this cycle has taken place time after time: separation, purification, judgment, and redemption."
If the problem was that people didn't believe in God, then how come God didn't just visit everybody or something. Wow, so much love for mankind.
"Separation, purification, judgment, and redemption."
Yahhhh, feel the love...
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 13, 2009 11:37 PM
Your wish is my command.
Posted by: Tomecat | August 13, 2009 11:38 PM
@ bench:
and DaveL:Maybe it's just the fever from my flu, but your comments have me giggling uncontrollably. See, the creation museum is good for something after all--even if it's just a mood lifter. Thanks:)
Posted by: Azkyroth | August 13, 2009 11:41 PM
It's also not clear that you're assuming a non-zero mortality rate.
Posted by: Jason | August 13, 2009 11:52 PM
Both Ham and our 'ancestor' do seem to have weird looking beards. There does seem to be a real resemblance... Was Ham the model or was it photoshopped - you be the judge....
Also What's up with our (evilutionists) ancestor's bad teeth?
Oh and the top hat... That takes the cake! ROTFL
Posted by: arachnophilia
|
August 13, 2009 11:56 PM
oh man. if *I* were in charge of "just making shit up" i totally would have put the non-homo-sapiens as descendants of adam and eve, but not descendants of noah. or perhaps as that other group that existed outside the garden of eden where cain went to find his wife.
but, you know, i'd group them with all the cool stuff that died in the flood. right?
these guys aren't even good at bullshit.
Posted by: amphiox | August 14, 2009 12:04 AM
Let's see here, Noah's family is 8 people. We have direct mention of Noah, 3 sons, and 1 grandson (Canaan, the one who was cursed to be a servant forever and ever and ever). That leaves 3. Supposedly all of Noah's sons already had families, which means 3 wives. This leaves no room for any Mrs. Noah.
It is possible Canaan was born after the flood, but the sequence certainly seems to suggest that the episode with the drinking and the seeing of the nakedness and the cursing of the kid occurred only a short time after the flood was over.
Also, presumably Noah and his sons are in the direct line of descent of Seth, third son of Adam and Eve (Abel being dead and Cain being exiled and all) So what about the descendants of Cain, who are supposed to be still around? One of the wives of Noah's sons then must have been a descendant of Cain, but all the descendants of Cain are supposed to be marked and forbidden from settling down, making it hard to imagine any one of them being allowed to marry into the family of a big patriarch like Noah (who was already a big shot before the flood, able to afford many servants and hire expert craftsmen to make his ark, all of whom were paid for their efforts by being left behind to drown - you'd think at least one of them would have tried to stow away. . . .)
Posted by: anti_supernaturalist | August 14, 2009 12:04 AM
** you visited one of the world's great temples to resurgent racialism
The word 'race' no longer signifies anything within the context of the biological sciences. Due to totally contingent conditions, human beings form one and only one species. Other proto-cultural species became extinct.
Even in popular culture, 'ethnicity' has replaced 'race' as a general sociological category -- one's place in a culture and the history of that culture do have an objectivity missing from pseudo-scientific constructs demarcating "races."
'Racism' however remains quite alive as a term. Racism remains quite alive as a practice. For more than 40 years, the concept of racism as a legal concept has been refined by well-attested court decisions and established public policy. To any one who claims that progress in morals does not happen or that xianity is the foundation of western morality -- you need only point out that morality can be legislated and that fundies opposed civil rights legislation from its earliest beginnings.
Racialism -- the creed of exalting one "race" to the exclusion of all others -- has millions of silent partners and thousands of hard-core supporters, many of whom are organized into shock troops and armed paramilitary squads. These disgusting people I call the xian-Taliban. We know they have deep pockets, friends in radio and TV who serve up endless fear and hatred, dictate terms for supporting Congressmen and Senators.
Whatever "ideology" stands in the way of racialism as integral to a xian creed will be attacked and shoved out of the marketplace of ideas. And modern evolutionary theory -- to the diseased minds we're discussing -- can be nothing but a competing ideology.
Whoever would stand in the way of racialist Dominionism -- will find a determined movement to overthrow existing government forms and replace them with theocratic substitutes -- which has succeeded in destroying school systems on a state level, has succeeded in scaring, harassing, finally assassinating abortion providers.
You dismiss them at your peril. They hate whatever cannot be lowered to their level. They are the true descendants of fictional Jesus and hysterical Paul of Tarsus.
Their xian forbearers destroyed the libraries of Athens, Alexandria, and Rome, closed the schools of philosophy (which in those times also included math, biology, astronomy), put the educated to death. The barbarians are always at the gates.
Posted by: Xenithrys | August 14, 2009 12:25 AM
The recently-added diagram seems to imply that (1) humans are polyphyletic, and (2) caucasians have evolved further from the ancestor than other races, in fact all four are shown in the usual racist order.
I wonder what Hammy's friend Pastor Hutch would say to that?
It might not be intentionally racist, but they clearly haven't thought it through.
Posted by: Bron | August 14, 2009 12:28 AM
Just when I think my mind can't be boggled anymore, the mind boggles some more!
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
August 14, 2009 12:30 AM
Also, I note in the exhibit a disconcerting absence of reptoids!
And what about Lectroids!
Teach the controversy!
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
August 14, 2009 12:32 AM
Live by the preview, die by the preview.
That should have been a ?!? after Lectroids, not an !
Teach the grammar controversy!
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Dawshoss | August 14, 2009 12:43 AM
So Cro Magnon man and Homo erectus are as far apart from whites as "Negros" and "Mongoloids", and that's NOT to be taken as racist?
Posted by: PeterKarim | August 14, 2009 1:02 AM
Lol at the last picture there. I think the evolutionary view is a bit more complicatoid than that
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 14, 2009 1:08 AM
Contrary to what a few have been saying in this thread, we have found distinct genetic populations. Sub-species status has been proposed for the the Australian Aborigine, and the Nilotic/Somali/Ethiope and the Khoi and Bushmen of Africa may qualify for sub-species status themselves. Even those from the British Isles have differences genetically with the main European population.
In short, we have not as homogenous as all that. There are regional differences, it's just that there is a fair amount of blending between the populations in the areas where they meet.
Where racists go wrong is to assume there are species level differences between the races. Between us and chimps there's a 98% genetic match up. Between us and bonobos the match up is 99%. As you can see it's not a matter of how much our species differ, but in how our species differ. Our system of gene regulation is the important difference between us and our closest relatives. Yet when we look at the genetics of the various human groups, we see that development is very similar, with only a very few changes to account for differences in morphology, color, and so on and so forth.
What genetic studies have done is demonstrate that there are differences between populations, but they don't make that big a difference over all. That the differences between the races are subtle ones, never reaching the status of species differences. The question of race in Homo sapiens sapiens is more complex than most people know, and thus more interesting.
BTW, if you happen to be Nilotic (a Masai for example), did you know that Harry Turtledove exhibits the Nilotic trait of being very tall and rather slim? He's also Jewish, and it's possible his ancestors go way back in Israelite history. In any case, it would appear some of your genes have gotten around. :)
Posted by: Bench | August 14, 2009 1:18 AM
#148 @Captain Mike: Ahh, yes. I see that now rereading the post. I should have caught that. Thanks.
Posted by: Dan W | August 14, 2009 1:19 AM
Okay, just the two pictures you posted from this guy's lecture made me think "WTF?", PZ. When it comes to making up crap, people like this Mortenson guy sure like to pick the most ridiculous nonsense.
Posted by: jpf | August 14, 2009 1:30 AM
Dawshoss #188: "So Cro Magnon man and Homo erectus are as far apart from whites as "Negros" and "Mongoloids", and that's NOT to be taken as racist?"
It's not actually racist (at least not in the way you and others here take it) because the argument they are trying to make is not that "Negros" and "Mongoloids" are as separate from "Caucasions" as we think H. erectus is from humans, but rather that H. erectus was merely a plain, old human just like you, me, and every white, black, and asian person are also human. They are trying to argue that there were no non-human hominids -- there was only ever Human Kind and Ape Kind. They take all the human ancestors and other hominid lineages and divide them up into either Human or Ape "baramins", claiming there's no transitions between the two since they were created separate. So, the argument they are making isn't in and of itself racist.
The annoying thing is that, at least as far as race in general goes, the position of AiG-style creationists and that of mainstream biology isn't really that different. Both say that all human populations have a single point of origin (creationists: the Ark; evolution: Africa), that the initial population was fully human (note to creationists: regardless of the outright lie in that second image PZ posted, common human ancestry of all races is the utterly orthodox view of human evolution), and that humanity radiated out from that starting point, with populations changing only superficially on different continents.
There's no real racism in either "worldview", but creationists are so... well... hell-bent on attacking evolution (and not having any real arguments against evolution that stand up to scrutiny to offer otherwise) that they are willing to twist anything they can to make evolution look racist, while apparently being oblivious to just how easy it is to do the same with their own ideas and materials.
Posted by: Dnic | August 14, 2009 1:41 AM
But wait, I'm confused...
That diagramme's missing the the Skunk Ape. And where are the Morfadites?
Posted by: Ron Sullivan | August 14, 2009 1:57 AM
Amphiox, in #182:
Also, presumably Noah and his sons are in the direct line of descent of Seth, third son of Adam and Eve (Abel being dead and Cain being exiled and all)
That depends on whether you read Chapter 4 of Genesis or Chapter 5 of Genesis. They don't agree on who Noah (and presumably The Rest of Us) descended from, Cain or Seth. Check 'em out.
Posted by: llewelly | August 14, 2009 2:22 AM
If these diagrams do not represent the Will Of God, then why are there PYGMIES + DWARFS?
Posted by: Mark A. Siefert | August 14, 2009 2:22 AM
@ Desert Son # 186
"Laugh-a while ya cana, a-Monkay boy!"
Posted by: 386sx | August 14, 2009 5:17 AM
That Noah and his family, quite the fine example of humanity they were.
Posted by: John
|
August 14, 2009 5:37 AM
The oldest university in the English speaking world, and that newer upstart one in the Fens both give BAs in science and maths subjects.
I guess that over there in the colonies, though, some of you may have forgotten how it is done back here...
Posted by: John
|
August 14, 2009 5:49 AM
That is not relevant at all. The population can double each generation through monogamous couples, or through everyone just sleeping with everyone else. The amount of monogamy or playing the field makes no difference to numbers.
And as for the people saying things such as "but you forgot child mortality", this makes no sense either. The contention was not that "each couple have four children", but that "each generation is twice the size of the former". This can happen with moderate or even large child mortality. If 50% of children died before reaching reproductive age, then 8 children per couple would be required. This is large, but not impossible.
Of course, we know that in reality population did not grow this fast, but no-one on here was claiming otherwise. The only claim was that it would take surprisingly few generations of doubling to get from 8 people to eight billion.
Posted by: ajay | August 14, 2009 6:06 AM
That last slide is obviously All About The Hats.
Original ancestor: ugly chimp thing. No hat.
Gives rise to, in order:
Degraded barely-human Australian. Note the rudimentary hat, a piece of red cloth tied around the head. It's only thanks to recent baraminological research that this has even been identified as homologous to more advanced hats.
The next stage up is the Negroid. This specimen is slightly more advanced: the hat now covers the entire head. However, it is still relatively simple in structure: this feature is known as the Protohuman Beanie or Ancestral Negroid Ski Cap.
This, in turn, gave rise to the Mongoloid. Notice that the hat is now considerably more complex; it is still non-rigid, but has a definite structure and even a primitive brim.
And so we come to the peak of God's creation - a middle-aged British man in a bowler hat!
Truly this is the Planet of Hats.
Posted by: Josh
|
August 14, 2009 6:16 AM
Well, that might be an accurate statement if all of the Colonial Colleges made a degree distinction with respect to field of study. But since that is demonstrably not the case(1), I'd suggest perhaps offering some classes that pay attention to something that isn't the Empire over at Oxon.
And of course, you're operating under the assumption that we care how it's done back there...
*ducks back behind some cover*
1. I think that one example here should suffice for now. Amherst College confers the AB degree, regardless of whether or not you study History or Physics:
https://www.amherst.edu/academiclife/
Posted by: Rorschach | August 14, 2009 6:20 AM
ajay @ 201,
in case someone missed the reference....( I hope it was a reference..)
Planet of the Hats
Posted by: crscapps
|
August 14, 2009 6:47 AM
I think we need to apply Occam's Razor to the picture of Noah. AIG claims that all species of human, primitive to modern, came from Noah's family. Since even AIG allows for a weird sort of evolution (i.e. varieties or kinds), then Noah would represent a basal stock (primitive) from which all of the other human races, etc. derived. Therefore the picture is Noah himself (unless they found a stand-in somewhere). See - science and religion do work together!
Posted by: Richard Eis | August 14, 2009 6:52 AM
If neanderthals died in the flood, that implies that there was a different species of human or massive variation BEFORE the flood. This causes as much of a headache as everything else.
Posted by: bunnycatch3r | August 14, 2009 7:24 AM
@Paula #158
I too will not discuss science with a creationist. I live in Zombieville, Midwest where I have yet to meet another freethinker. It really sucks because I genuinely get excited about any new book, blog, or idea I run into. Unfortunately, their minds have been switched off and they are hardwired for hostility.
Posted by: KevinC | August 14, 2009 7:31 AM
flim flam@164:
Actually, I think it started with Adam.
"OK, you big lizard-thing with the long, sharp pointy serrated teeth for eating cabbage! I name thee 'Sheila.' Come here, baby! Awwww yeah... Yeah... Work it..."
"Raaar!"
"Unh... *sigh* You know what, this just isn't working. Um, Yahweh? Is it too much to ask for you to make a girl of my own species?!"
Naturally, bestiality was perfectly OK before Yahweh created Eve. And who knows, maybe afterward too. Noah--->chimp = Homo habilis...right?
Posted by: passerby | August 14, 2009 7:33 AM
"We Americans tend to use "Asian" to mean "southeast Asian", forgetting that India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Middle East, Siberia, and various other -stans are in Asia."
Not to mention that Asian is implicitly understood to refer to Indian/Pak/Bangla first and foremost in the UK. Its a term that will pretty much be defined by a culture's historical contact with Asia. For the US, Asia has historicly been a matter of looking across the Paficic. For the UK, its all about tea, curry and generaly ripping off India.
otherwise an intersting theory, 8 members of Noah's family go their seperate way and split into 6 human off shoots. obviously Neandathals and Homo Erectus died out because they couldn't get a date, what with the Cro-Magnon, Caucasian, Mongoloid and Negroid dudes hogging all the women.
It fits, i think their on to something. Wonder what happened to those Cro-Magnons though.
Posted by: John
|
August 14, 2009 7:35 AM
And, indeed, also if the converse were true.
In fact, its truthfulness can be said to be independent of how US colleges distinguish between degrees...
You even get people in the UK asking "why do Oxbridge have to be different", to which, of course, the reply is "we do not do it differently, you do".
Posted by: Citizen Z | August 14, 2009 7:41 AM
Anybody else notice how the Caucasoid is way out ahead of all the other races? You've got the arrows pointing to the right, and the Caucasoid is winning! Yay! Go Caucasoid!
In case any creationist is reading this, that's sarcasm.
Posted by: KI | August 14, 2009 7:50 AM
A couple days ago I made a post where I showed some admiration for these people on the basis of their "all humans are related" and "races don't exist" claims. I take it all back, they use words without understanding their meaning, and cloak their racism.
Posted by: Josh | August 14, 2009 7:53 AM
I completely understand. Why can't they see it? I mean seriously, Manchester...1824? Really? You've just come to town!
Posted by: sherdnerd | August 14, 2009 8:17 AM
#51
Coventry University Library Catalogue lists:
Mortenson, Terence J., British scriptural geologists in the first half of the nineteenth century. Coventry: Coventry University.
Posted by: Diogo Besson | August 14, 2009 8:51 AM
Dr Mortenson had forgotten to include Monster Jackson on his speech. Human variation? LOL
Posted by: Chas | August 14, 2009 9:07 AM
Anyone have a source for debunking the ten successful scientific predictions made by creationist scientists on the AIG site:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/successful-predictions
Posted by: David | August 14, 2009 9:18 AM
The scary part is that we Scientifically minded atheists, as well as rational believers can think up better plot lines for this crap than the farking Creation Museum.
Posted by: robinsrule | August 14, 2009 9:43 AM
I think you're on to something: an omnipotent prototypical idiot deity, sitting on top of a vast pyramid of idiocy maintained by lesser idiots (popes, priests, pastors, etc,) all working to create a state of perfect stupidity in their followers.
Posted by: John
|
August 14, 2009 9:47 AM
Absolutely, we were doing our thing for over six hundred years before they showed up!
If I'm not very much mistaken, Oxford is so old that one of the colleges was actually founded by Jeebers himself.
Posted by: Captain Mike | August 14, 2009 9:52 AM
To John @ 200: Thanks. You saved me some typing.
Posted by: Josh | August 14, 2009 9:53 AM
Priceless...
Of course, a fellow from Paris and one or two from Salamanca just glared in your general direction, but whatever.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 14, 2009 9:54 AM
If I'm not very much mistaken, Oxford is so old that one of the colleges was actually founded by Jeebers himself. John
A common student prank is apparently to ring Jesus College porters' lodge on 25th December. When the phone is answered, the caller asks "Is that Jesus?". The answer "Yes" elicits a chorus of "Happy Birthday To You".
Posted by: Erp | August 14, 2009 10:01 AM
Thanks, Sherdnerd, for the thesis title
Mortenson, Terence J., British scriptural geologists in the first half of the nineteenth century. Coventry: Coventry University
Googling the title is interesting as we get bits and pieces.
Including apparently a Wikipedia article on Scriptural Geologists which draws heavily from the thesis (and was created quite recently).
Posted by: KALEB | August 14, 2009 10:02 AM
wow! i can't wait to go to the creation museum and learn the truth! lol
Posted by: bbgunn | August 14, 2009 10:06 AM
#217 Robinsrule: "I think you're on to something: an omnipotent prototypical idiot deity, sitting on top of a vast pyramid of idiocy maintained by lesser idiots (popes, priests, pastors, etc,) all working to create a state of perfect stupidity in their followers."
My hierarchy 'analogy' would make Noah the 'Captain' on a ship of fools. I guess we know who the admiral and commodore were.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 14, 2009 10:34 AM
Chas @ # 215 - Try the Index to Creationist Claims at talkorigins.net.
I picked one of the AIG "predictions" at random - the one about helium in crystals - and with a little searching (the ICC list uses the word "zircon" instead of "crystal") tracked down the exact story (mis)described by the Hamites.
My prediction is that with some easy digging, all the others will be found in the Index as well.
Posted by: jo5ef | August 14, 2009 11:15 AM
Yes those arrows aren't too subtle; its pretty clear who's closest and who's furthest away from that creepy looking evolutionary ancestor with the goofy grin (I'd love to know where they got that picture from).
Posted by: SoreLoser | August 14, 2009 11:37 AM
Is it just me or does the evolutionary ancestor look a lot like Ken Ham?
Posted by: bullfighter | August 14, 2009 12:05 PM
Looking at that picture... George W Bush has become rather unkempt since he left office...
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
August 14, 2009 12:15 PM
Mark A. Siefert at #197,
"Bigboo-TAY! TAY! TAY!"
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Draken | August 14, 2009 12:21 PM
@80, so Ray Comfort is going to hand out corrupted Origins at the UC Berkley? I wish him good luck finding it on any map.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 14, 2009 12:52 PM
SoreLoser@227: I refer you to #177.
Posted by: Zach Miller | August 14, 2009 1:24 PM
I guess chimps don't have orthodonty.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 14, 2009 1:30 PM
First: If I were actually present at this presentation, at the moment when this slide went up, I would have immediately, and without hesitation, stood up and yelled out "I call Poe!"
Second: I swear I've seen this exact slide in an old Monty Python skit.
Third: I've read that some of you notice the resemblance of the image of "Caucasian" to Hovind... but I think it looks more like Ace.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 14, 2009 1:33 PM
Err... I meant "resemblance to Ken Ham"... not Hovind... too many kooks... hard to keep track.
Posted by: Bob L | August 14, 2009 2:22 PM
That second picture interesting with the odd resemblance to the American flag, the lines with the Caucasians with longest and the caption "RACES". No subtle message there, no sire. Not saying the honkys are wining the race of the races or anything.
Posted by: Gabriel | August 14, 2009 2:36 PM
Is it worth pointing out that the Whites, Caucasians, are the ones that created this wonderful world? The computers you are using? The weapons we got to defend ourselfs?
Negros and Asians are, proven, to be rather backwards and more close to Apes then Us Whites, this is SHOWN by history, look at what we have accomplished? Sure, you can train, just like dogs, negros to behave and do work, we have plenty of them here in america, but most go back to their native behaviour of violence and criminality, statistics is on our side, most of our jails got negros and asians not white, WHY IS THAT?
I know i know, its a CONSPIRACY, the government is behind it, just like UFOs and all that, right? Comeone guys, just use facts and we know the truth, lets not call it racism but FACTS instead, we KNOW negros are close to apes, look at how they ACT and BEHAVE for gods sake, YES, we can train them, but we also do that to dogs and other animals, some of them go berserker, just like the negros (look at america and all our problems with crime and rape and such that the negros do).
BUT ITS NOT RACISM its just the facts. We should be able to talk about this without racism bullshit.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | August 14, 2009 2:48 PM
We don't attribute history to a conspiracy, you racist idjit, it's about resources and circumstances. Useful items for scientific advancement are not uniformly spread out over the planet. Neither is inspiration. "Whites," if you can even call that a group, got lucky enough with those sorts of things to gain a lead.
Of course, there's little basis to even think about defining what you're talking about in terms of biology.
Oh, and for the record, ALL humans are apes. We act the part well.
Posted by: St.B | August 14, 2009 2:51 PM
@236, I hope you’re being sarcastic. I saw this thread last night and after then hitting the AiG site, I went from shocked laughter to getting a bit angry. Today to see your inane blather using simplified generalizations to propagate such moronic concepts… did you actually read the crap you wrote? All you have accomplished is to degrade yourself and make it plain your insight into life is at the same low standard.
Go get your dunce cap, and if there were a god it’d give you a little up close and personal time with the ban hammer.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | August 14, 2009 2:55 PM
The Big Lie racists have to shove between the lines to use "history" to denigrate other races: "Circumstances are exactly equal everywhere on Earth."
They have to resort to that because last time I checked, the Human Genome Project pulled the carpet out from under them.
Posted by: Ritchie Annand | August 14, 2009 2:57 PM
.I thought for a brief moment that they might have filled that list with things that were almost plausible...
...but then I looked, and saw that they had come up with that craptastic list. Wow, talk about false extrapolations. They extrapolate the magnetic reversals, just like they extrapolate the recession of the moon, and come to ridiculous conclusions.
"The present is no guide to the past"... except when it's convenient to ignore the past and extrapolate the present.
If you truly want to see the very definition of "Then A Miracle Occurred...", you should take a look at some of Russell Humphreys' papers.
His stages of magnetic decay are funny, because he has tried to take into account the magnetic stripes on the sea floor:
I get a kick out of their "successful prediction" #3: Radiohaloes in sandstone, in that it refers to the RATE project, which saw that the radioactive decay would be over 500 million years to produce what they saw. However, the caveat was that this would be at "today's rates". #3 ending with:
...is especially funny in light of that.
It really seems like the more these people go for capital-T Truth, the further away they get from small-t truth.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 14, 2009 2:58 PM
I believe the website you are looking for is called StormFront
Posted by: Veep | August 14, 2009 3:02 PM
Gabriel, kill yourself. You do not deserve life.
And change your name - you besmirch good men with that name.
Posted by: fly44d | August 14, 2009 3:09 PM
Is it just me, but the picture of the ape on the "Races" picture looks like someone Photoshopped Ken Ham's picture onto the ape. That is what I thought when I first saw it before reading it came from the AiG website.
These people just kill me. Hopefully not literally.
Posted by: Spiv | August 14, 2009 3:28 PM
Thanks for clearing up the Ph.D thing, to start...
Now, on the Noah's Family thing. They're saying of the 8 people on the ark: 3 were Noah's sons (Shem, Ham, and Japheth), Noah, a neanderthal, a cro magnon, a homo-erectus, and one unnamed person (I'll make no assumptions here).
ok...
Gen-7:7 "And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood."
So, basically, two of the Noah's kids's wives were neanderthal, cro-mag, or erectus, and either noah's wife was too or the 3rd son's wife. Only one person /potentially/ had a homo-sapien wife.
Am I reading this right?
Posted by: E.V. | August 14, 2009 3:49 PM
So is AiG/ Creation Museum saying that extended periods in a geographic location/environment have nothing to do with melanin expression and resulting physiological changes over generations of offspring and the fact that everyone's predecessors at one time were dark skinned because of the area of origin, the Afar Triangle?
Even with a literal belief, Adam and Eve should be a great deal more tan to contend with that tropical sun - as dark as most sun exposed Arabs, Indians or Egyptians. Oh, I forgot Yahweh is fair-skinned, blue eyed and
blondgray haired. Silly me.Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 14, 2009 3:52 PM
MikeTheInfidel @ # 231 - I refer you to # 161 (though yours @ # 177 is better).
Posted by: Skemono | August 14, 2009 3:53 PM
White people created the earth? So you've skipped the usual masturbatory paean to how great your skin color makes you and jumped right to the conclusion: white people are GOD! They created the earth in 6 days, and on the seventh day, they lynched some negroes!
Ah, yes? The ones that were created in large part due to an African-American (that's what educated people call "negros")?
Like gunpowder, which was invented by the Chinese?
That's not been proven at all. Come on, try showing us something that indicates that "Negros and Asians" are genetically more similar to apes than whites. That'll be rather difficult, mind, given that there's more genetic diversity in Africans than the rest of the human species.
History also shows that Asians created gunpowder, bombs, grenades, and rocket launchers, but you insist on saying that white people came up with that. Why should we believe you know anything about history?
Well, you've accomplished nothing but trolling a website. Not terribly impressive compared to, say, the Great Wall of China, or the Forbidden City, or the Empire of Cush, or Great Zimbabwe.
Because there's a lot of systemic racism in the US, which means that black people are more likely to be stopped by the police, more likely to be jailed for an offense, more likely to be convicted, and more likely to get a harsher sentence, than white people doing the exact same thing. This does nothing to indicate that blacks are more inherently violent or that whites are more inherently law-abiding.
Nope. People's hidden (or in your case, rather overt) biases are behind it. No conspiracy needed.
You've not been doing a good job of that so far.
You haven't used any facts to support your position. Just racist bullshit. So, no, I think I'll continue to call racism, racism.
Well, all humans are apes, but that's probably not what you mean. Again, I know of absolutely zero information that would indicate that blacks are genetically more similar to apes than are whites. Please, do tell how you know this to be true.
They act like other people. Human behavior does have a lot of similarity with the behavior of other apes, it's true, but what of it?
Did you train your dog to write this comment? 'Cause it's about that stupid.
Then look at the problems with crime and rape and such that the whites do. Surprise, white people murder and rape and pillage too! A lot!
Pathetic. Go back to Stormfront or VDare, you racist sack of shit.
Posted by: Jason | August 14, 2009 3:55 PM
236 should probably be vaporized. Gabriel is obviously a Troll and a racist. That kind of talk is not acceptable - even in a free and open forum such as this.
In regards to Gabriel's "points".
- No one on this page is suggesting anything less than the equality of all races.
- The fact that we evolved from apes has been proven. Some of the details are still being worked out, but there is no real doubt that we evolved from apes. We have the bones, we have the DNA, we win.
- Believing evolution to be true does NOT make you a racist.
- Believing that dark skinned peoples almost certainly came before light skinned peoples does not make you a racist either. That said, it is a touchy subject for cultural reasons. Even though it is a touchy subject, that doesn't mean we can't understand and learn about our diversity (genetic, morphological, cultural, evolutionary, etc.). I believe that the idea of African origins for all men is a unifying concept. We are all Africans because that's where we all came from. We are diverse but at the same time, we are one people.
Gabriel - Go find another forum for your vile nonsense or better yet get a life and grow up!
Posted by: malamu | August 14, 2009 4:06 PM
Not all of them. Dark skin has evolved several times independently. Also, neanderthals and chimpanzees are light skinned, so this is not like a big single arrow from dark to light.Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 14, 2009 4:23 PM
The phrase "don't feed the troll" exists for a reason, guys...
Posted by: Jason | August 14, 2009 4:45 PM
@249 - Are you saying that the mtDNA Eve was not African?
Again I quote from Deep Ancestry...
Bringing up neanderthal and chimpanzee is not relevant as neither are our ancestor. They are both cousins.
My claim that light skinned peoples came after dark skinned peoples is merely in the context of recent history (the last 200,000 years or so). And you are correct that evolution can go either way and so we can't be 100% certain of this. But given the latitude of Africa and the current geographic distribution of light skinned peoples, it makes sense that all of our ancestors at one point where African (just look at the geographical frequency distribution of the mitochondrial haplogroups).
In support of the claim that we are all Africans (again quoting Deep Ancestry)... we do know that "current genetic data indicates inigenous people belonging to these groups (L0/L1) are found exclusively in Africa, which supports the notion that the earliest humans originated in Africa".
Posted by: Aphrodine | August 14, 2009 4:47 PM
Holy shit! There is crazy... and then there's Time Cube crazy!
... Or is this somehow more crazy than Time Cube? Or maybe this is all just trolling IRL?! Please tell me this is IRL Poeing. It has to be, right? RIGHT?!
/sorry. I refuse to acknowledge the fact that somebody honestly believes this.
Posted by: Jason | August 14, 2009 4:51 PM
@MikeTheInfidel - 250.
You are right... sorry - I'm still learning how this whole blog commenting thing works.
Posted by: malamu | August 14, 2009 5:12 PM
Jason, we were not talking about our ancestors but about dark skinned people, so yes they are relevant. Our ancestors being black does not imply that dark skin is by itself a primitive trait. African people have evolved too, and Australians are dark skinned as well, so you should not really say black skin came first because black skin is not a unique, single trait.
Posted by: Stewart Cowan | August 14, 2009 5:26 PM
I am wondering why PZ Myers has an apparently large following, when most of his writing seems to be basic abuse and disrespect.
Hardly the sign of a well-balanced individual with an enquiring and open mind!
At least he doesn't have the nerve to call his website a 'clear-thinking oasis'!
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 14, 2009 5:27 PM
chimpanzees are light skinned
not really, unless you want to claim that just parts of them being light skinned qualifies...
http://fogonazos.blogspot.com/2007/03/cinder-naked-chimpanzee.html
those arms and legs looked light skinned to you?
they look rather dark to me.
In fact, actually chimps vary quite a lot wrt skin color, so I doubt one could say with any generality they are light OR dark.
Posted by: Jason | August 14, 2009 5:28 PM
@254 - malamu
I was not saying that black skin was a primitive trait - Thanks for putting words in my mouth! Don't be an ASS. I am certainly not suggesting that. Are you a Troll or something? Methinks you might be.
In this particular case (recent human origins), black skin came before white skin (at least that's the way it appears in this portion of our evolutionary history). Now that might not be the case, but there's pretty strong genetic evidence that is the truth.
It's really not that important - the important thing is that our ancestors appear to have come from Africa. That tells us a lot about the story of our distant past.
You still haven't answered my question... Are you saying that the mtDNA Eve was not African?
Posted by: windy | August 14, 2009 5:35 PM
That's irrelevant. Fins are not a unique, single trait but we can still say that fins came before legs in our lineage.
1.2 million years ago the ancestors of modern humans had a variant of the MC1R receptor that confers dark skin.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | August 14, 2009 5:42 PM
In case anyone's still interested in Gabriel, he's trolled my place. Open season troll roast over there.
Oh, and Stewart @255: If you think PZ's bad, you should check out his opponents. Many say we deserve eternal purposeless torture for daring to question the absolute infallibility of Men of Faith, who "know" the gods grovel at their feet and submit to their definitions. Others say that we should sit at the back of the bus with Rosa Parks and never ever dare raise our voice to demand to be treated like civilized beings because equality under the rule of law is a barbaric, heathen concept.
Posted by: CJO | August 14, 2009 5:44 PM
BUT ITS NOT RACISM its just the facts.
Christ on a crutch, unreconstructed white-supremicism. Thought all you fuckers were dead or on a reservation in Idaho somewhere.
To paraphrase the old saw:
You can tell you're making up the facts when it turns out they hate all the same people you do.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 14, 2009 6:12 PM
Light skin, dearly beloved, is an adaptation to local conditions. This includes brown, red, and yellow skin as well as white. Australian Aborigines have dark skin because there's really no pressure on the population to evolve a lighter integument.
In a sense dark skin is a primitive feature. That does not make the animal that possesses it primitive overall. We have five fingered hands, a primitive condition. I rather doubt any sane person would equate us to a five-fingered frog or salamander.
/sarcasm/I must also disagree with the admonition to starve trolls. As we all know, animals that live a bit 'lean' tend to live longer. By outright starvation we insure that trolls will live forever. Let us feed trolls all we can shove down their throats, because overfed animals suffer all sorts of nasty ailments and conditions, which result in a greatly truncated life span.\sarcasm\
Posted by: Captain Mike | August 14, 2009 6:16 PM
I'm not entirely sure I'd agree with Stewart on what counts as abusive and disrespectful. Here's a quote from his site:
"Oh, the wonders of human sexual diversity - once known as depravity and/or mental illness, but now promoted by special interest groups and, naturally, also by governments in the civilised West.
The problems associated with saturating our culture with unpleasant and generally unwanted behaviour keep mounting."
Blech.
Posted by: Shadow
|
August 14, 2009 6:34 PM
#236:
Wow -- did someone suck out your brain and replace it with steel wool or something?
As others have mentioned -- our genetic ancestors came out of Africa.
Much of what you ascribe to whites was 'prior art' from non-whites.
I'm sure Freepers would love you.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 14, 2009 6:44 PM
In this particular case (recent human origins), black skin came before white skin (at least that's the way it appears in this portion of our evolutionary history). Now that might not be the case, but there's pretty strong genetic evidence that is the truth.
there might be some confusion, as primitive is an synonym of ancestral, though of older usage.
primitive not having a negative connotation, is my meaning.
Posted by: WayBeyondSoccerMom | August 14, 2009 6:56 PM
I guess no one at the museum read the AiG article on its website, entitled “"Are There Really Different Races?”.
This part is fairly humorous.
Oh, yeah, it's all Darwin's fault!!
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 14, 2009 7:00 PM
yes, ain't it cute how they misconstrue what darwin meant by 'race' in the title (meaning variant of trait within a population) and race, as a human classification scheme at the time.
it's beyond inane.
I see that done all too often by creationists, though.
Posted by: R Hampton | August 14, 2009 7:57 PM
The next time a Creationist spouts the micro- vs macro- nonsense, ask why the Maned Wolf (76) has two less chromosomes then Dogs and Wolves (78)? Mention also that that the Short-eared Dog, the Crab-eating (Common) Fox, and the Yellow Jackal only have 74 chromosomes. When they start to stammer, tell them that Foxes are even more diverse: Bat-eared (72), Grey (66), Fennec (64), Bengal (60), Kit (50). For the coup de grâce, explain that the Red Fox has 32 regular chromosomes and 0-8 accessory chromosomes!
If they haven't walked off in a cloud of confusion and/or frustration, hit them with the following questions:
1. If Noah needed only one pair (or seven) of "every kind", then wouldn't he have needed at least 6 different fox-like pairs and 3 different dog-like pairs to account for the spread of chromosomes?
2. Wouldn't that also mean the Ark was much, much more crowded then you previously thought (considering that other "kinds" have similar variation)?
3. But if Noah did need only one Dog-Wolf-Fox-thing to sire the Canidae family, then genetically what prevents Man (46) and Ape(48) from sharing a common ancestor?
Posted by: Dr. P | August 14, 2009 8:05 PM
You can't possibly be this stupid...this must be a poe.You've not been paying attention...You are in all likelihood,more genetically similar to some 'blacks' than you are to some'whites'.Unless you are speaking specifically of cultural and social preconceptions that are pushed on people so that they think of themselves in these terms, they way you are using these terms means little to nothing.Do you really need the history lesson to show just how much 'blacks' asians',etc have contributed to your 'white' world or are you really going to play Pat Buchanan and pretend there were no minorities pre 1950? My own grandfather was an amazing (to me) polymath whose only barrier to success and personal happiness lay within his own mind because he believed just that kind of stupid crap about himself.He believed his color defined him because he believed clueless morons like you.Posted by: Jason | August 14, 2009 8:34 PM
Nice link Windy! This is very interesting stuff.
Here's a few of the key paragraphs from the text.
And...
Posted by: GodSpkr | August 14, 2009 9:40 PM
I lack the wisdom, knowledge and education to debate such fine and worth adversaries such as yourselves. I peruse your chats often, amused by the Godlessness, and lack of True Faith.
In the Word of Our Lord, I must speak Truth.
It is without the shame that my Christian brothers & sisters feel that I admit to you:
Cro Mag, HomoE & Neanderthal are truly Noah's children.
Alas, you have the right idea with evolution, but you have the direction reversed. It was not God's plan, but a drunken night between Noah and a horny female chimp.
It's the part of the family God doesn't like to talk about.
Yours in Christ
Posted by: Steve | August 14, 2009 9:47 PM
When it comes to religion people will believe anything. ANYTHING.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 14, 2009 10:02 PM
Godjkr...
Srsly? I mean rlly?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 14, 2009 10:11 PM
I won't disagree.
Posted by: Pablo | August 14, 2009 10:27 PM
Only if they are among the "unclean" animals. Otherwise they would have needed 7 pairs.
Posted by: bastion of sass | August 15, 2009 3:11 AM
So, since the Bible believers contend that humans are made in God's image, does this mean that AiG believes that perhaps God may look like Homo erectus?
Maybe they ought to start depicting God that way in 1/6 of their depictions of Him, with the other 5/6 divided evenly between the other five branches of Noah's family tree. It's only fair, instead of always depicting God as one of the "Caucasian" branch.
Posted by: Elrod | August 15, 2009 4:08 AM
I think we are all decedents of aliens. Their doing evolutionary experiment on the human species. I think this is more plausible than "creationism". Obviously this guy is a fuckin' idiot. I think one the problems of religion is these people are so close minded, and they like to live in this fantasy world of theirs. The radiocarbon dating of " Lucy " obviously disputes any time line that these Clowns present.
Posted by: Joel | August 15, 2009 8:59 AM
That chimp is going to haunt my nightmares for years to come.
Posted by: Jason | August 15, 2009 10:27 AM
@276 - to be more precise, Lucy was dated using a "technique called Argon-Argon dating. A technique called Paleomagnetic dating has also been used. By dating the sediments that surrounded Lucy's body at the time of her death, we are able to determine her age. Argon-Argon and Paleomagnetic dating are just two of the dating techniques in use today. Archaeologists make use of various dating techniques to establish the age of an artifact or fossil.
"
http://lucyexhibition.hmns.org/dating-lucy.aspx
Posted by: shonny | August 15, 2009 10:39 AM
Still think IDiotland is an apt name for that place, and they should be termed IDiotlanders. That way there's no doubt who we refer to.
It is quite nauseating that they present information for children and 'retards for christ' that is false and stupid. Creotards alright!
Posted by: Jason | August 15, 2009 10:45 AM
@276 - but you are correct, the dating methods used by real scientists do totally blow away their timeline. But I don't think they (AiG) even have a timeline for Lucy... In AiG's reasoning, Lucy was more of a single event in time (pre-flood and pre-curse). What was their timeline again - oh I think it was 2348BC to 2348BC for every biological milestone that happened before the super-flood... LOL. Remember this from a few days ago?
Posted by: not a gator | August 15, 2009 4:42 PM
@128
I was referring to the actor, but to address your comment:
knowing a lot of Aspberger's patients and gays, either gay men hide it better/have less severe symptoms (as females do, presumably due to that relatively larger connection between hemispheres that both females and gay men have relative to heterosexual men) or there's a negative correlation. Or all the gay Aspies are hiding in their mom's attic.
In all seriousness, the gay scene is pretty ... Darwinistic. No social skills --> no date for you. Unless your idea of a hot date is the men's room in the airport, that is...
Posted by: John
|
August 15, 2009 5:18 PM
Not a Gator wrote
Although clearly you don't know the former well enough to know either that it ia "asperger" or "asperger's" syndrome (not "aspbergers"), or that they don't tend to refer to themselvs as "patients".
That, along with the second part of the sentence I am afraid makes the above read awfully closely to a line like "What, me, I have lots of black friends!", which is never a good phrase with which to flirt.
Posted by: not a gator | August 15, 2009 5:25 PM
@193 and that humanity radiated out from that starting point, with populations changing only superficially on different continents.
I think this characterization is somewhat inaccurate. The resistance of certain populations to certain severe diseases is not superficial--in a literal sense, it's a hidden genetic trait that lies inside the body; in a broader sense, it changed the course of history. Western European populations had a higher resistance to smallpox than, say, Native American populations. Just as sub-Saharan Africans with the sickle-cell gene have a higher resistance to malaria. If you look simply at the history of the European powers during their age of conquest, being able to wipe out an indigenous population due to the spread of disease on the one hand, and finding succumbing themselves in extreme numbers to tropical diseases on the other had a significant impact on the political history of the regions they attempted to invade.
Evolution is ongoing. It certainly didn't stop when homo sapiens left the homeland and spread all over the Earth. Beneficial mutations crop up and get passed around. This is why there is some health provider's relevance to race. If it were only about superficial items like hair curliness and the shape of one's nose, it would be a lot less relevant.
Of course I am not disagreeing with you--we are definitely all one species, and exogamy is very beneficial. There is a horrifyingly long list of nasty genetic diseases that crop up in endogamous subgroups.
Posted by: not a gator | August 15, 2009 6:06 PM
@282
I was too lazy to check my spelling, so that's a fair cop. But before you start accusing me of having lots of aspie friends, perhaps it would help you out to know that I'm one too.
As for flirting, sorry, I'm taken.
Posted by: Mr Ash
|
August 15, 2009 8:04 PM
On the subject of light/dark skin, given that we evolved initially in Africa, it does seem likely that the earliest populations would have been dark skinned, but I suppose it is possible that they were light skinned and the dark skin evolved after the first migrations out of Africa.
The Wikipedia link Windy posted earlier seems to argue that as light skin is results from multiple loci, and that there is much less variation in dark skin, the dark would be the original under selection pressure to stay that way.
Is there any evidence that the other implied claim, that Australian Aboriginals could have re-evolved light skin form dark skinned ancestors may be possible? (I imagine Creationists, who like to claim that mutations only ever destroy information (ie cause proteins to function less efficiently, or just stop working) would insist it is not possible.)
Posted by: Jason | August 16, 2009 2:00 AM
@285
I'm sure that's one possible scenario, but it doesn't sound to me like it's a very likely one. According to the genographic project, "the first humans to leave Africa likely followed the southern Indian coastline, reaching Australia in only a few thousand years." A few thousand years may not have been enough time and the selective pressures probably would not have been there given the route that was taken for that scenario to make sense.
Quoting Deep Ancestry once again (I need another source!)
They also talk about Haplogroup C as it relates to the genetic story of the Aborigines ancestors.
So that doesn't directly answer your question Mr. Ash, but I think it is probably reasonable to infer from the genetic/genographic data narrative that this group which became the Australian Aborigines was not likely light skinned, but dark skinned. Not that this question is important, but it is interesting to know that science might have a well supported answer (however controversial it might be for some audiences). I bet the answer would hinge on the route taken from Africa to Australia and that the evolutionary pressure associated with the ancestral from of the MC1R gene would have been maintained.
Anyway here's a good map that gives a visual as to the results of all those migrations and local evolutionary pressures.
Posted by: Jason | August 16, 2009 2:19 AM
@285
oops - that 're-evolving' thing was a joke wasn't it?
Posted by: grorbetry | August 16, 2009 8:16 AM
Hello all,
I'm glad to provide at this page www.theinvestblog.com an interesting
kind of making money. Can you imagine a person
can earn up to 3% a day through investments without limitations in sums ?
I. e. that even having US$1.000,00 one can earn the same money in a monthly!
If anyone is interested welcome to my blog http://www.theinvestblog.com.
Posted by: George Evaniah | August 16, 2009 11:10 AM
Hmmm... They found 20 million dollars to put behind these ideas, while much research goes unfunded? Guess money isn't the meter of intelligence it was thought to be, no?
If so, then the question is begged: Why is good research going unfunded? Cannot credible researchers find and further such garbage, so as to access these easily available funds? Are our researchers stupid? Why not just abandon integrity and get the job done? After all it for the betterment of mankind, so why not a "no holds barred" approach? Join me at the "Creationist Ice Core Survey Institute", for scads of fun!
Posted by: nathan | August 16, 2009 12:25 PM
i think everyones wrong how bout that? no one knows wtf their talking about cause everything is a guess.
Posted by: Rey Fox | August 16, 2009 12:50 PM
"i think everyones wrong how bout that?"
Congratulations, you are a lazy thinker.
Posted by: Jason | August 16, 2009 12:54 PM
@nathan
Yeah that's right - it's a guess that the earth goes round the sun not the other way around. It's a guess that AIDS is caused by a virus. There's a difference... so what exactly are you talking about?
Posted by: grorbetry | August 16, 2009 1:37 PM
Hi all,
I'm glad to provide here www.theinvestblog.com an interesting
kind of earning. Can you imagine that one
may make up to 3% a per day through investments without limitations in without sum limits?
I mean that even if one has US$1.000,00 one may make the same amount in a month !
If anyone gets interested welcome to visit my web site http://www.theinvestblog.com.
Posted by: skeptic | August 16, 2009 2:08 PM
Hey,the good thing is that people who believe this stuff are actually trying to make it make sense now instead of blind;ly following.It might be misguided but it reminded me of my journey away from Christianity.You reach a point where you stop putting your fingers over your ears and try and make it all make sense.Once you've crossed that bridge there is no turning back because at some point as much as you try to make the Bible tie in with science it doesn't,and there isn't any other conclusion to come to.
Posted by: OccuctGowwhog | August 19, 2009 6:53 AM
I [url=http://watchtvonline1.com]watch tv online[/url]alot, lol some of my favorites are youtube. What are places
can I watch tv online.
Is it legal for me to have explained here?, and bank accounts? How to start? Can I move my existing business offshore
Thanks
Posted by: Richard S | August 21, 2009 9:14 AM
Hey! I think that's Wavy Gravy representing the caucasoid race!